THE 


Student^s  Life  of  Jesus. 


BY 


GEORGE   HOLLEY   GILBERT,  Ph.a,D,D., 

loiva  Professor  of  Nciu   Testament  Literature  and  Inter- 
pretation in  Chicago   Theological 
Setninary. 


PRESS  or  ^ 

Chicago  Theological  Seminary, 
CHICAGO. 

i8g6. 


Copyright,  1896. 
Chicago  Theological  Seminary  Press. 


TO 
ALL  EARNEST  STUDENTS 

OF 

THE    IMMORTAL    THEME, 

THIS    BOOK 

IS 

RESPECTFULLY    DEDICATED. 


"As  for  mi',  /?i\'  ardiivc  is  Jesiis   Christ.      Tlic  iiidcsh-iiclible 

archive  is  His  cross,  cind  His  death,  and  His  7-csu)-rcctio>i,  and 

the  faith  t]iroup;]i  Hi  my  t  at-. 

-'  '^  Ignatius,  115  A.  D. 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE        -------  IX 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  Sources  of  the  Life  of  Jesus. 

1.  The  Synoptic  Gospels 

(a)  Criticism  of  the  Sources 

(b)  The  Literary  Problem 

(c)  Elements  in  the  Solution 

(d)  Historic  Value  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 

2.  The  Fourth  Gospel  -  -  -  - 

(a)  Trustworthiness  of    the  Narrative  Portions 

(b)  Trustworthiness  of  the  Discourses  of  Jesus  in  the 

Fourth  Gospel  -  -  - 

3.  The  Gospel  outside  the  Gospels 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Supernatural  Conception  -  -  - 

(a)  The  Data  ----- 

(b)  The  Difficulties     ----- 

(c)  Unscriptural  Claims    -  -  -  - 

(d)  The  Narrative  Historical  -  -  - 

(e)  Meaning  of  the  Supernatural  Conception       -  -  88 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus       -             -             -             -  90-107 

(a)  The  Place               -             -             -             -             -  -       90 

(b)  The  Date           -             -----  93 

(c)  The  Shepherds      -             -     '       -             -             -  -       99 

(d)  Circumcision  and  Presentation            -             -             -  100 

(e)  The  Magi                 -            -             -             -             -  -     103 

(f )  Herod  Baffled                -----  106 

(V) 


13- 

78 

13- 

51 

- 

13 

16 

- 

20 

47 

51- 

74 

51 

the 

59 

74- 

78 

79- 

-  89 

79 

- 

80 

84 

- 

86 

VI.  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Education  of    Jesus 

(a)  The  Home  Circle 

(b)  The  Study  of  the  Law      - 

(c)  The  Study  of  Nature 

CHAPTER   IV. 
The  Baptism  of  Jesus      -  -  - 

(a)  The  Data  .  -  -  - 

(b)  Significance  of  the  Water-baptism 

(c)  The  Dove  and  Voice     - 

(d)  Significance  of  the  Spirit-baptism 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Temptation  of  Jesus     -  -  - 

(a)  The  Data 

(b)  Time  and  Place 

(c)  The  Fasting 

(d)  The  Content  of  the  Temptations 

(e)  The  Form  of  the  Temptation 

(f)  Subsequent  temptations  of  Jesus 

CHAPTER  VI. 

A  Bird's-eye  View  of  the  Ministry  of  Jesus 

(a)  Length  of  Christ's  Ministry 

(b)  Chronological  Outline 

(c)  Topographical  Outline 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Ministry 

(a)  At  the  Jordan 

(b)  At  Cana  -  .  -  . 

(c)  At  Capernaum        .  -  - 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Early  Judean  Ministry 

(a)  The  Data         .  .  -  - 

(b)  First  Public  Act 

(c)  The  Challenge  of  the  Jews 

(d)  Signs  in  Jerusalem 

(e)  The  "Work  of  Preparation 


io8- 

-116 

108 

- 

III 

114 

117- 

-125 

117 

- 

118 

119 

- 

121 

26- 

135 

- 

126 

127 

- 

128 

129 

- 

132 

134 

136- 

-143 

- 

136 

139 

' 

143 

144- 

-157 

- 

144 

148 

- 

155 

158. 

-172 

158 

- 

159 

161 

- 

163 

169 

CONTENTS.  VIL 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Two  Days  in  Sychar  .  .  .  . 

(a)  Departure  from  Judea       ...  - 

(b)  At  Jacob's  Well  and  in  Sychar 

CHAPTER  X. 
The  Galilean  Ministry — First  Part 

(a)  General  View  .  .  .  - 

(b)  The  Teaching  of  Jesus      -  -  -  '. 

(c)  The  Demonized  .  .  .  . 

(d)  The  Miracles  of  Healing 

(e)  The  Appointment  of  the  Twelve 

(f )  Jesus  on  the  Lake  .  .  _  . 

(g)  Raising  the  Dead        .  .  .  - 
(h)  The  Opposition     ----- 
(i )  The  Mission  of  the  Twelve 

CHAPTER  XI. 
In  Jerusalem  at  Purim  -  -  .  - 

(a)  In  General      ----- 

(b)  The  Bethesda  Sign  -  -  -  - 

(c)  At  Meat  with  a  Pharisee 

CHAPTER  XII. 
The  Galilean  Ministry — Second  Part 

(a)  General  View  -  .  -  _ 

(b)  Height  of  Galilean  Popularity      -  -  - 

(c)  Last  General  Messianic  Work  in  Galilee 

(d)  On  Heathen  Soil  -  -  -  . 

(e)  Signs  Sought  and  Signs  Given  in  Decapolis 

(f )  At  Caesarea  Philippi         -  .  -  - 

(g)  The  Final  Departure  from  Galilee 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Last  Labors  for  Jerusalem         -  -  -  - 

(a)  The  Data         ----- 

(b)  The  Journey  to  Jerusalem  -  -  - 

(c)  General  View  of  the  Third  Visit  in  Jerusalem 

(d)  Teaching  in  the  Temple  -  -  - 

(e)  Testing  the  Jerusalem  Disciples 

(f )  The  Man  Born  Blind        .  -  -  - 

(g)  In  Solomon's  Porch 


173 

-179 

- 

173 

175 

180 

-233 

180 

- 

181 

192 

- 

199 

206 

- 

211 

218 

- 

222 

226 

234-241 

234 

- 

235 

236 

242 

:-283 

242 

- 

243 

251 

- 

255 

258 

- 

264 

278 

284-297 

284 

- 

285 

287 

- 

288 

292 

- 

293 

295 

VIII.  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIV 
The  Perean  Ministry     -----  29S-  305 

(a)  General  View              .             -             .             .             .  298 

(b)  The  Seventy  ------     299 

(c)  Perean  Incidents              -                 -             -                 -  301 

CHAPTER  XV. 

In  Bethany  and  Ephraim             .             -             .             .  306-310 

(a)  In  Bethany     ------  306 

(b)  In  Ephraim           -             -             -             -             -  -     30S 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

The  Last  Eight  Days           -             -             -             -             -  311-3S4 

(a)  The  Data                -             -             -             -             -  -     311 

(b)  Friday  and  Saturday  before  the  Crucifixion             -  312 

(c)  Sunday  of  the  Last  Week     -         -             -             -  -     3^4 

(d)  Monday,  Tuesday  and  Wednesday  of  the  Last  Week  320 

(e)  Thursday  of  the  Last  Week          -             -             -  -     335 

(f )  The  Day  of  the  Crucifixion                 -             -             -  357 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

The  Resurrection  and  the  Risen  Christ         -             -  385^405 

(a.)  Incidents  of  the  Sabbath        -             -             -             -  385 

(b)  The  Resurrection               .             -             -             .  -     388 

(c)  Appearances  of  the  Risen  Lord         -             -             -  392 

(d)  The  Objective  Reality  of  the  Resurrection          -  -     400 

(e)  The  Ascension             -----  403 


PREFACE. 

The  aim  of  this  volume  is  different  from  that  of 
the  great  hves  of  Christ  which  enrich  and  adorn  the 
Christian  hterature  of  our  century.  For,  first,  it  does 
not  seek  to  discuss  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  detail. 
This  is  regarded  as  a  distinct  theme,  and  is  considered 
only  in  so  far  as  seemed  necessary  to  a  clear  account 
of  the  character  and  life  of  Jesus.  The  reader  is 
asked  to  bear  this  fact  in  mind,  and  not  to  hold  the 
book  responsible  for  a  full  explanation  of  all  the  words 
of  Jesus. 

Second,  the  aim  of  this  volume  is  also  peculiar  in 
that  it  seeks  to  present  the  subject  in  a  form  suited  to 
stiidoits  in  particular.  Persons  who  take  the  life  of 
Jesus  so  seriously  that  they  wish  to  get  at  the  very 
facts,  do  not  desire  that  these  facts  should  be  woven 
into  a  romance,  or  set  forth  together  with  the  thou- 
sand devotional  lessons  that  may  be  quite  legitimately 
drawn  from  them,  or  presented  with  such  elaboration 
and  fulness  of  reference  to  many  writers  and  many 
opinions  that  the  outlines  of  the  life  itself  become 
blurred    and   indistinct.       The   student    wishes    to    be 

(IX.) 


X.  PREFACE. 

made  acquainted  with  the  facts  as  directly  and  clearly 
as  possible.  That  is  the  service  which  the  present 
volume  seeks  to  render. 

This  aim  makes  the  book  compact  and  predomi- 
nantly critical.  By  critical  we  mean  seeking  the  truth 
in  a  scientific  manner.  One  who  thus  seeks  endeavors 
to  prove  all  things,  whatever  the  claims  which  they 
make  for  themselves  or  which  others  make  for  them. 
This  method  is  always  truly  conservative,  for  the  more 
clearly  truth  is  seen  the  more  surely  it  is  conserved. 
To  remove  error  is  to  promote  truth,  and  to  show  that 
beliefs  have  a  rational  basis  is  to  increase  their  power. 

And,  further,  this  book  is  written  with  the  convic- 
tion that  a  believer  in  Christianity  may  investigate  the 
life  of  Jesus  as  scientifically  as  an  unbeliever.  One 
fact,  among  others,  which  justifies  this  conviction, 
and  which  is  sometimes  overlooked,  is  this,  that,  for 
the  Christian,  the  risen  and  reigning  Lord,  who  is 
actually  conquering  the  world,  is  infinitely  greater 
than  the  written  Gospel.  The  power  of  Christianity  is 
His  spiritual  presence,  and  not  the  inspiration  or 
infallibility  of  the  story  of  His  earthly  life.  Our  faith 
does  not  stand  or  fall  with  these  things.  The  essen- 
tial claims  of  the  Gospel  are  daily  established  by  the 
deepest  experiences  of  millions  of  souls.  So  the  Chris- 
tian, whose  life  rests  not  upon  any  alleged  quality  of 


PREFACE.  XL 

the  Gospel,  nor  even  on  the  written  Gospel  itself,  but 
whose  life  consists  rather  in  a  personal  relation  to  the 
living  Lord,  is,  to  say  the  least,  as  well  able  to  inves- 
tigate the  documents  of  Christianity  impartially  as  is 
the  unbeliever.  May  the  time  be  hastened  when  all 
investigators  in  this  field  shall  loose  their  shoes  from 
their  feet  before  the  central  Figure  of  the  Gospels,  and 
recognize  in  Him  the  final  expression  of  divine  wisdom 
and  divine  love.  Surely  the  outcome  of  all  the  criti- 
cal research  of  our  waning  century  is  a  deepening 
sense  of  the  inviolable  historic  value  of  the  Gospels, 
and  now,  as  ever  in  the  past,  the  Church  awaits  with 
undimmed  hope  and  unceasing  effort  the  consummation 
of  the  kingdom  by  the  revelation  and  power  of  Jesus 
Christ  its  King. 

March  24,   1896.  ,  G.  H.  G. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  SOURCES  OF  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

I.     The  Synoptic   Gospels. 
(a)     Criticism  of  the  Sources.     A  scientific  study  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  presupposes  a  critical  examination  of 
the  sources  which  furnish  us  information  of  that  life. 
Only  by  such  investigation  can  one  arrive  at  a  satis- 
factory view  of  the  historical  facts.      For  these  sources 
are  as  manifestly  human  as  their  message  is  divine. 
They  are   a  product   of    the    devoted    research    and 
careful  thought  of  Christian  disciples  of  the  first  cen- 
tury.     Their  divinity  is  in   za/iat  they  report,  not   in 
the  waf  they  report.      It  is  far  from  the  spirit  of  the 
writers  to  claim  infallibility  for  their  narratives.      The 
utmost  that  they  claim  is,  in  one  case,  to  be  an  honest 
witness  of  the  facts  recorded  (John  i.   14;  xix.  35;  xxi. 
24),  and  in  another  case,  to  be  a  careful   and  thorough 
historian,  who  had  access  to  full  sources  of  information 
(Luke    i.    1-4).      The    first  and  second    Gospels    are 
anonymous,  and  though  they  make  no  claim  whatever 


I  4  INTRODUCTION. 

for  themselves,  they  were  doubtless  originally  put  into 
circulation  by  men  who  believed  and  claimed  that 
they  had  reliable  information  in  regard  to  the  life  and 
teaching  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  that  they  had  faith- 
fully presented  it  in  these  narratives.  No  other 
claims  than  these  are  in  any  wise  involved.  If  these 
writers  were  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  Christ's  life, 
and  were  honest  witnesses,  that  is  all  we  could  expect 
and  all  that  we  need.  They  have  sometimes  been 
wounded  in  the  house  of  their  friends,  by  the  fact  that 
these  friends  have  claimed  for  them  what  they  do  not 
claim  for  themselves,  and  what  their  narratives  do  not 
warrant. 

''Their  writings  must  be  regarded  as  human  his- 
tory, though  they  are  the  revelation  of  God.  And  it 
is  only  from  the  human  side  that  scholarship  can 
approach  them.  But  it  is  our  duty  to  do  this  boldly, 
though  with  reverence,  for  the  more  we  understand 
the  human  the  more  are  we  in  a  position  to  search 
into  the  deep  things  of  God."^  Criticism  of  the  sources 
is  not  only  justified  by  the  absence  of  any  claims  to 
exemption  from  criticism  on  the  part  of  the  authors 
of  the  Gospels,  but  it  is  plainly  required  by  numerous 
phenomena  in  the  writings  themselves.  Thus,  for 
example,  the  order  of  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  is  not 

I.     See  The  Composition  of  the  J-our  Gospels,  A.  Wright,  1890. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS.  1$ 

always  the  same  in  the  different  Gospels,  and  the 
student  must  decide  which  order  is  the  true  one. 
Again,  the  material  which  constitutes  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  in  the  first  Gospel  is  partly  found  in  Luke, 
but  is  there  scattered  over  a  long  period,  and  the  words 
were  spoken  on  different  occasions.  Or  to  take  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  general.  We  find  that  they  are 
often  differently  reported  by  the  different  writers,  and 
while  the  differences  are  as  a  rule  slight,  they  are 
sometimes  considerable;  but  whether  slight  or  con- 
siderable, they  all  are  important  in  documents  so 
immeasurably  precious  as  are  the  Gospels,  and 
demand  scientific  investigation.  And  to  take  still 
another  illustration.  The  wide  and  varied  differences 
between  the  Synoptists  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
fourth  Gospel  on  the  other,  while  they  do  not  justify 
the  conclusion  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  unauthentic, 
yet  support  the  claim  that  these  sources  must  be 
tested  by  Christian  scholarship. 

But  examples  of  this  sort  need  not  be  multiplied. 
This  word  only  may  be  added,  that  the  results  of  the 
critical  study  of  the  sources  in  the  past  half  century, 
even  when  that  study  has  been  carried  on  in  an  unbe- 
lieving spirit,  have  been  of  great  value  for  the  under- 
standing of  the  Gospels.  Like  the  recently  discov- 
ered   Rcmtgen   rays,  by  which   the   invisible  structure 


l6  INTRODUCTION. 

of  different  substances  can  be  photographed,  criticism 
has  to  some  extent  discovered  the  structure  and  origin 
of  the  Gospels,  which  had  been  hidden  for  centuries. 
It  must  be  honored  for  what  it  has  done,  and  culti- 
vated for  what  remains  to  be  done. 

{b)  The  Literary  Problem  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
A  comparative  analysis  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  reveals 
the  two-fold  fact  that  in  a  multitude  of  details  they  are 
remarkably  alike,  and  in  a  multitude  of  details  they  are 
remarkably  unlike.  The  correspondence  amounts 
in  some  cases  to  identity,  and  the  disagreement  in 
some  cases  amounts  to  contradiction.  In  many  cases, 
also,  where  the  narratives  are  plainly  dealing  with  the 
same  event  or  saying  of  Jesus,  the  reports  are  neither 
identical  nor  contradictory,  but  simply  different  from 
each  other.  Thus  to  illustrate  the  last  phenomenon 
first,  each  of  the  evangelists  has  his  own  peculiar 
version  of  the  words  uttered  by  the  disciples  when 
they  feared  their  boat  was  about  to  sink  in  Lake 
Galilee.  "Teacher,  is  it  nothing  to  thee  that  we 
perish.-* "  says  the  second  Gospel  with  an  accent  of 
reproach.  "Lord,  save:  we  perish!"  is  the  urgent 
prayer  of  the  disciples  according  to  Matthew.  In  the 
third  Gospel  the  cry  is  rather  one  of  despair:  "  Mas- 
ter, Master,  we  perish!"  (Mark  iv.  38;  Matt.  viii. 
25;  Luke  viii.  24).      These  versions  are  all  quite  dif- 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  1 7 

ferent,  but  not  contradictory.  It  is  as  easy  to  hold 
them  all  to  be  historical  as  to  hold  the  historicity  of 
either  one. 

Frequently  also  the  difference  between  the  three  nar- 
ratives is  verbal  only,  each  giving  the  same  thought. 
Thus  all  the  Synoptists  represent  Jesus  as  saying  that 
it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven;  but  each  one  has  his  own  peculiar  Greek 
word  for  eye,  and  one  differs  from  the  other  two  in  his 
word  for  needle  (Mark  x.  25;  Matt.  xix.  24;  Luke 
xviii.  25).  Sometimes  the  differences  of  this  class 
may  have  a  literary  or  even  historical  interest,  as  in 
the  stories  of  feeding  five  thousand  and  four  thousand 
people,  where  the  same  word  for  basket  is  used  by  the 
four  writers  who  describe  the  first  miracle  (Mark  vi. 
43;  Matt.  xiv.  20;  Luke  ix.  17;  John  yi.  12),  and  a 
different  word  is  used  by  the  two  who  recount  the 
second  miracle  (Mark  viii.  8;  Matt.  xv.  37).  Here 
the  two  different  words  may  point  to  different  local- 
ities, and  so  the  difference  may  have  an  important 
bearing  upon  the  question  whether  these  two  stories 
do  really  concern  two  different  works  of  our  Lord, 
or  are  simply  different  versions  of  one  and  the  same 
event,  as  some  scholars  hold.  But  in  many  cases 
these  verbal  differences  have  no  further  value  than 


l8  INTRODUCTION. 

to  remind  us  that  between  the  Aramaic  words  of  Jesus 
and  our  Greek  reproduction  of  them,  also  in  the  Greek 
reproduction  itself,  there  was  liberty  in  the  choice  of 
words;  and  that  the  same  liberty  was  ex-ercised  in  the 
narrative  portions  of  the  Gospels,  whether  in  the 
translation  of  these  from  the  Aramaic,  if  they  ever 
existed  in  the  Aramaic  in  a  written  form,  or  in  the 
oral  and  written  moulding  which  they  underwent 
before  taking  final  shape  in  our  canonical  Gospels. 
It  was  said  above  that  the  correspondences  between 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  amount  in  some  cases  to  identity. 
This  is  true  both  of  the  words  of  Jesus  and  of  the  nar- 
rative itself,  but  as  might  have  been  expected  is  more 
extensive  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter.  In  the 
language  of  Jesus  we  have  absolute  agreement  in  all 
three  Gospels  through  at  least  tJiirtcen  words  (Mark 
viii.  35;  Matt.  xvi.  25;  Luke  ix.  24).'  The  identity 
reaches  through  foui^tecn  words  in  the  case  of  one 
Old  Testament  quotation  common  to  all  the  Synop- 
tists  (Mark  xii.  36;  Matt.  xxii.  44;  Luke  xx.  42). 
In  the  narrative  part  of  the  Gospel  absolute  verbal 
identity  does  not  extend,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to 
find,  beyond  three  consecutive  words  (Mark  v.  40; 
Matt.  ix.  24;  Luke  vii.  53).  If  we  take  but  two  of 
the  three  Gospels,  we  find  the  identical  passages  some- 

I  See  the  Greek  text  in  Huck's  excellent  Synapse  dcr  drei  ersten 
Evangelien,  1892. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  1 9 

what  longer  and  more  frequent.  The  longest  is  in  the 
report  of  the  Baptist's  sermon  (Matt.  iii.  7-10;  Luke 
iii.  7-9),  where  there  is  absolute  identity  through 
thirty-seven  words.  There  are  however  very  few 
passages  in  any  two  of  the  Synoptists  where  the  per- 
fect agreement  reaches  one-half  or  one-quarter  of  this 
extent.  But  it  is  a  fact  requiring  explanation  that  we 
have  complete  verbal  agreement  even  in  such  a 
measure.  When,  however,  we  set  up  a  less  exalted 
standard,  and  inquire  after  passages  common  to  all 
the  Synoptists  which  show  close  verbal  agreement,  the 
number  of  passages  found  is  large.  There  are  all 
degrees  of  agreement  from  the  very  remote  to  the 
very  close.  In  the  matter  common  to  all  the  Synop- 
tists the  verbal  relationship  between  the  first  and  sec- 
ond Gospels  is,  as  a  rule,  closer  than  between  either 
of  these  and  the  third. 

But  as  has  been  said,  the  comparative  analysis  of 
the  Gospels  reveals  a  dissonance  by  the  side  of  the 
agreement,  and  this  dissonance  amounts  in  some 
instances  to  contradiction.  Thus,  in  the  second  Gos- 
pel, the  twelve  disciples  when  sent  out  on  their  first 
mission  are  allowed  to  take  a  staff,  while  in  the  first 
and  third  they  are  not  allowed  to  take  one  (Mark  vi. 
8;  Matt.  x.  10;  Luke  ix.  3).  Again,  according  to 
the  second  Gospel,  Jairus  tells   Jesus  that   his   little 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

daughter  is  at  the  point  of  death,  while  according  to 
the  first  Gospel  he  says  she  is  already  dead  (Mark  v. 
23;  Matt.  ix.  18).  Once  more,  Matthew  tells  us  that 
the  centurion  of  Capernaum,  who  desired  that  Jesus 
should  heal  his  servant,  came  to  Jesus  in  person,  while 
according  to  Luke  he  did  not  come  in  person,  but 
sent  messengers  (Matt.  viii.  5-13;  Luke  vii.  i-io). 
There  are  other  cases  as  decided  as  these,  though  the 
number  is  small,  and  then  there  are  all  degrees  of 
difference  shading  off  to  zero.  These  are  the  phe- 
nomena that  constitute  the  literary  problem  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels. 

{c)  Elements  in  the  Solution.  A  recent  English 
writer'  has  remarked  that  the  critical  study  bi  the 
Gospels  is  still  in  its  infancy,  and  the  wide  diversity 
of  views  regarding  the  origin  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
justifies  this  statement.  Not  that  the  labors  of  the 
past  have  been  fruitless.  Much  has  been  accom- 
plished negatively  and  positively,  but  much  remains 
to  be  accomplished.  The  problem  is  not  simple,  and 
no  part  of  it  is  simple.  "  I  doubt,"  says  Sanday,  "  if 
in  the  whole  range  of  literature  there  is  another  ques- 
tion which  involves  data  so  complicated,  so  minute, 
and  to  all  appearances  so  conflicting.  "^ 

1  Arthur  Wright,   The  Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels,  1890. 

2  See  Expositor,  i8gi. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  2  1 

There  is  still  a  .great  diversity  of  solutions  of  the 
problem    in    spite    of    the    comforting    statement    of 
Wendt  in  the   Nczv    World  for  June,   1895.      He  says 
"it  is  now  quite  generally  recognized  by  the   theo- 
logians who    occupy    themselves    with  the    Synoptic 
problem  that  we  must   assume  a   direct  knowledge  of 
one  of  our  Synoptic  Gospels   by  the  other  two.    .    .    . 
The  Mark-hypothesis   in   combination   with   \he  Mat- 
thew-Logia   hypothesis    has  become    dominant    with 
the  scientific  theologians  of  Germany."     But  this  lan- 
guage gives  a  rather    too    pacific  picture   even  of  the 
German  field.      For    Holtzmann^  says    that  it   is  still 
doubtful  whether  there  was   a  primitive  Mark,  that  is 
to  say,  whether  our  canonical  Mark  is  at  the  founda- 
tion of  our  Matthew   and   Luke,  or  whether  the  foun- 
dation was  some  predecessor   of  our  canonical  Mark. 
Readmits   also   that  "it    is   still   a   burning  qwesixon 
whether  we  have  the  primitive  representation  and  the 
root   of   the  other   Synoptic  texts  in    Matthew   or  in 
Mark."    This  means  that  the  evidence  of  interdepend- 
ence  between   Mark    and    Matthew    (or   the  Login,  a 
document  which  some  think  to  have  been  the  basis  of 
our  Matthew)  is  inconclusive.      The  same  writer  says 
that   it   is  doubtful    whether  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
independent.    But  if  the  interdependence  of  Mark  and 

I  See    Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen   Eiyileitung  in    das 
N.  T.,  1886,  pp.  362-366     . 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

Matthew  is  still  a  burning  question-,  it  can  scarcely  be 
affirmed  that  the  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark  is 
settled.  Therefore  the  statement  of  Holtzmann  leaves 
the  impression  that  the  consensus  of  German  scholars 
is  far  from  complete  regarding  various  phases  of  the 
Synoptic  question.  Beyschlag^  says  that  we  must  give 
up  the  position  that  anyone  of  our  present  Gospels  is 
the  source  of  the  others,  and  Holsten^  inverts  the 
favorite  order,  making  Mark  subsequent  to  Matthew. 

And  when  we  consider  the  work  of  scholars  in 
other  lands,  we  certainly  do  not  find  unanimity. 
Wright^  seeks  to  explain  the  various  phenomena  of  our 
Synoptists  by  the  hypothesis  that  they  were  catechists, 
who  represent  three  cycles  of  the  oral  Gospel.  Hence 
his  explanation  does  away  with  all  dependence  of  our 
canonical  writers  upon  each  other,  and  does  not  pre- 
suppose any  documentary  source,  except  for  the  his- 
tory of  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus  and  of  John 
the  Baptist.  And  Salmon*  thinks  we  can  assert  with 
confidence  that  the  sayings  which  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  in  common  were   not  drawn  from  any  documen- 

1  Das  Lehe7i  Jesii,  I.  p.  8i. 

2  Die  Synoptiscke?i  Evangelien,    1885, 

3  The  Compositioyi  of  the  Four  Gospels,  1890. 

4  A  Historical  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Books  of  the 
N.  T.,  second  edition,  1886.  Compare  also  V.  H.  Stanton  in  Exposi- 
tor, 1893. 

Among  eminent  advocates  of  the  oral  theory  mention  may  be 
made  here  of  Godet,  Expositor,  i88g,  and  Westcott,  Introductio7i 
to  the  Gospels,  sixth  edition,  1881. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  23 

tary  record  containing  only  our  Lord's  discourses  (the 
favorite  view  in  Germany),  but  must  have  reached 
the  authors  as  independent  fragments  of  an  oral  tradi- 
tion. Marshall  on  the  other  hand  finds  the  solution 
of  the  problem  in  a  primitive  Aramaic  Gospel  trans- 
lated into  Greek  by  the  different  evangelists.  Sanday 
does  not  think  the  Logia  alone  are  always  adequate  to 
account  for  the  phenomena  in  Mark  and  Luke  where 
the  matter  is  common,  and  though  he  thinks  the  com- 
mon foundation  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  was  a  docu- 
ment which  is  best  represented  in  Mark,  I  do  not 
understand  that  he  regards  our  canonical  Mark  as 
itself  the  document  which  was  used  by  the  other  Syn- 
optists.'^  Therefore  the  time  is  not  yet  come  to  say 
that  any  particular  theor)'  of  the  origin  of  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels  holds  the  field. 

The  conclusions  to  which  my  own  studies  have  led 
me,  are,  first,  the  mutual  independence  of  our  present 
Synoptic  Gospels.  This  conclusion  is  forced  upon 
me  by  the  analysis  of  the  text.  Not  only  are  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  independent,  but  Matthew  and  Mark 
as  well.  Neither  one  had  a  copy  of  the  other  before 
him  as  he  wrote,  which  he  largely  followed,  and  there 
is  no  sufficient   evidence   for  saying  that  either  copied 

1  See  Articles  in  Expositor,  1891,  vols.  III-IV.  Comp.  Alfred 
Resch,  Agrapha,  1889. 

2  Expositor,  1 89 1. 


24  INTRODUCTION. 

the  other  from  memory.  In  the  relation  of  Luke 
and  Mark  there  is  more  ground  for  accepting  a  partial 
dependence;  but  none,  as  it  seems  to  me,  for  the 
view  that  Mark's  narrative  had  a  regulative  influence 
upon  Luke.  The  independence  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
is  so  generally  admitted  that  it  may  be  passed  over  in 
this  brief  survey  of  the  subject,  and  the  evidence  for 
the  independence  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  and  Mark 
and  Luke  cannot  be  given  in  full,  but  only  in  outline. 
And  first,  we  will  consider  Luke's  independence  of 
Mark,  for  it  is  now  generally  admitted,  though  denied 
by  some  earlier  writers,^  that  if  either  was  dependent 
upon  the  other  the  dependent  one  was  Luke,  and  not 
Mark.  It  may  be  noticed  at  the  outset  that  Luke  has 
not  less  than  thirty  passages  regarding  the  public  min- 
istry of  Jesus,  each  of  considerable  length,  that  are  not 
found  in  Mark.  These  include  miracles,  parables, 
and  narratives  of  events  that  belong  to  a  large  part  of 
the  public  life  of  Jesus.  This  peculiar  matter  would 
make  a  book  almost  half  as  long  as  the  second  Gos- 
pel. It  is  plain,  then,  that  Luke  had  copious  sources 
entirely  apart  from  Mark.  But  what  of  the  matter 
which  they  have  in  common.^  There  are  five  short 
sections  which  they  have  as  their  peculiar  property, 
and  two  sections  in  which  they  both  give  fuller  infor- 

I  So,  e.  g.,  Bleek,  Einleitung,  1875,  p.  290. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  25 

mation  regarding  particular  events  than  does  Matthew. 
Of  these  seven  passages  only  two  are  favorable  to  the 
theory  of  Luke's  dependence  upon  Mark  (Luke  iv. 
31-37;  Mark  i.  21-28;  Luke  xxi.  1-4;  Mark  xii.  41- 
44).  In  the  remaining  five  passages  the  evidence 
against  dependence  is  more  positive  than  is  the  evi- 
dence for  dependence  in  the  two  cases.  Thus,  for 
example,  in  the  story  of  the  Gerasene  demoniac 
(Mark  v.  1-20;  Luke  viii.  26-39),  each  evangelist  has 
his  own  peculiar  name  for  the  region,  Mark  calling  it 
the  country  of  the  Gei^asenes,  and  Luke  the  country 
of  the  Gergesenes.  In  Mark  the  demoniac  comes  out 
of  the  tombs,  in  Luke  out  of  the  city.  In  Mark  the 
demoniac,  when  healed,  published  the  fact  through 
Decapolis,  in  Luke  he  published  it  through  the  city. 
In  this  instance  a  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark 
seems  wholly  improbable.  Or,  take  the  story  of  the 
raising  to  life  again  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  (Mark 
V.  21-24,  35-43;  Luke  viii.  40-42,  49-56.)  In  Mark 
several  messengers  come  to  Jesus,  in  Luke  but  one. 
In  Mark  Jesus  says  to  the  throngs,  "Why  do  ye 
weep.^"  in  Luke  he  says,  "Weep  not."  Mark  gives 
the  impression  that  all  who  beheld  the  miracle  were 
amazed  and  that  secrecy  was  enjoined  on  all,  which 
was  probably  the  case,  while  Luke  says  that  \.\i^  pare^its 
were  amazed,  and   that  they  were  commanded  not  to 


26  INTRODUCTION. 

tell   what   had   happened.      These  differences  are  not 
favorable  to  a  dependence  of  Luke  upon  Mark. 

If  now  we  examine  the  larger  class  of  passages 
which  are  common  to  Luke  and  Mark  with  Matthew, 
out  of  about  sixty-three  sections  there  are  some  forty- 
two  where  there  is  evidence,  I  think,  against  the  de- 
pendence of  Luke  on  Mark,  and  only  twenty-one  of 
which  it  may  be  said  that  Luke  might  have  drawn  his 
material  from  Mark.  As  a  rule,  the  evidence  for 
dependence  in  these  cases  is  less  decided  than  the  evi- 
dence for  independence  in  the  other  cases.  We  will  take 
at  random  two  passages  from  the  smaller  list.  The  first 
is  the  story  of  the  call  of  Levi  (Luke  v.  27-32;  Mark 
ii.  13-17).  There  are  details  even  here  which  are  not 
quite  favorable  to  Luke's  dependence.  Thus  while 
Mark  puts  the  call  of  Levi  by  the  lakeside,  Luke  is 
not  more  definite  than  that  it  was  outside  the  house 
of  Peter.  Is  it  probable  that  if  he  had  been  dependent 
upon  a  definite  statement  he  would  have  changed  it  for 
an  indefinite  one  'i  Luke  alone  has  the  circumstances 
that  Levi  left  all,  that  the  meal  which  Jesus  shared  in 
Levi's  house  was  a  great  feast  made  in  His  honor,  and 
that  the  Pharisees  reproached  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
as  well  as  Jesus  Himself,  because  they  ate  with  publi- 
cans and  sinners.  In  spite  of  these  peculiarities  it  is 
perhaps  possible    that    Mark    had   a  determining  in- 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  2/ 

fluence  upon  Luke.  Take  a  second  case  at  a  venture. 
It  is  the  section  regarding  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion* (S^mV^  xxi.  20-24;  Mark  xiii.  14-20).  Luke 
represents  Jesus  as  saying,  "When  ye  see  Jerusalem 
surrounded  by  armies."  This  language  takes  the 
place  of  Mark's  "abomination  of  desolation  standing 
where  it  ought  not,"  and  may  be  an  interpretation  of 
this  Jewish  figure.  In  Mark  the  appearance  of  the 
"abomination"  is  to  be,  to  believers,  the  signal  for 
flight;  the  compassing  of  Jerusalem  by  armies  has  this 
significance  also,  but  first  it  is  to  indicate  to  believers 
that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  at  hand.  This 
must  be  regarded  as  a  free  modification,  if  Luke  is 
dependent  on  Mark.  Again,  in  Mark  Jesus  says  that 
when  the  "  abomination  "  shall  appear,  then  he  who  is 
on  the  housetop  is  not  to  come  down,  neither  enter  in 
to  take  aught  from  the  house.  This  seems  to  presup- 
pose that  he  is  to  escape  by  flight  from  roof  to  roof, 
and  so  the  language  naturally  applies  to  Jerusalem. 
However,  since  Luke  begins  with  the  siege  of  Jerusa- 
lem, it  is  of  course  too  late  for  persons  to  flee  from 
the  city,  and  accordingly  this  part  of  Mark's  words  is 
dropped  by  Luke.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  Luke's 
difference  from  Mark^is  most  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  theory  of  his  dependence  upon  Mark,  but  we  will 
grant  that  it  might  be  so  explained.     These  two  cases 


28  INTRODUCTION. 

which  have  been  considered  may  represent  the  score 
of  passages  where  it  is  possible  to  think  of  Mark  as 
the  source  of  Luke. 

But  over  against  these  we  have  twice  as  many 
passages  where  we  cannot  entertain  the  thought  of 
Luke's  dependence.  We  will  consider  two  or  three 
of  these  passages  in  order  to  show  the  quality  of  the 
argument.  Take  first  the  account  of  the  storm  on 
the  lake  (Mark  iv.  35-41;  Luke  viii.  22-25).  The 
summons  to  go  over  to  the  east  side  is  made  in  Luke 
when  both  Jesus  and  His  disciples  are  in  the  boat, 
while  in  Mark  the  disciples  are  on  la7id,  perhaps 
Jesus  also.  The  words  uttered  by  the  terrified  disci- 
ples are  not  the  same  in  Luke  and  in  Mark.  And 
finally,  if  Luke  had  had  Mark's  most  vivid  picture  of 
this  event  before  him,  it  would  be  strange  that  he  re- 
tained none  of  the  picturesque  details — the  many 
boats  that  started  with  Jesus,  the  waves  beating  into 
the  boat,  Jesus  asleep  on  the  cushion  in  the  stern, 
and  the  words  which  He  spake  to  the  sea. 

Again,  let  us  look  at  the  parable  of  God's  vine- 
yard (Luke  XX.  9-19;  Mark  xii.  1-12).  If  Mark  had 
been  the  source  of  Luke,  is  it  probable  that  Luke 
would  have  made  the  following  changes.^  Mark  says 
that  the  owner  of  the  vineyard  went  abroad;  Luke 
adds  for  a  long  time.      Mark  speaks  of   three  servants 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  29 

sent  one  by  one,  to  receive  the  fruits,  and  then  of 
many  others;  Luke  drops  the  many  others.  Mark 
represents  the  son  as  slain  in  the  vineyard;  Luke 
puts  the  deed  outside  the  vineyard.  Then  Luke  has 
important  details  not  found  in  Mark.  Thus,  accord- 
ing to  him,  the  parable  called  out  from  the  hearers 
the  words  "God  forbid."  And  Luke  says  that  Jesus, 
when  about  to  quote  the  Scripture  regarding  the  cor- 
ner-stone, looked  upon  the  people.  This  sounds  like 
the  word  of  an  eye-witness,  and  as  Luke  was  not 
such  a  witness,  it  suggests  that  he  had  a  first-rate 
source.  Finally,  Luke  has  the  word  of  Jesus  about 
falling  upon  the  "stone."  Now  if  Luke  did  not  invent 
these  various  details,  he  must  have  had  a  source 
other  than  Mark.  And  if  he  had  a  source  other  than 
Mark,  who  can  say  how  closely  and  largely  he  fol- 
lowed it? 

Again,  in  his  account  of  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Luke  certainly  is  not  dependent  upon 
Mark  (Luke  xxii.  18-20;  Mark  xiv.  22-25).  The 
word  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  drinking  wine  again  with 
the  disciples,  Luke  puts  before  the  institution  of  the 
Supper;  Mark  after  it.  Then  Luke  adds  important 
words  to  Mark's  version.  Thus  to  the  words,  "This 
is  my  body,"  he  adds,  "which  is  given  for  3'ou:  this 
do  in  remembrance  of  me."     He  speaks  of   the  cove- 


30  INTRODUCTION. 

nant  as  the  "  new"  covenant,  and  the  blood  is  "  shed 
for  you."  Either  Luke  drew  here  from  some  other 
source  than  Mark's  Gospel,  or  we  must  suppose  that 
he  invented  these  weighty  additions  to  the  words  of 
the  Lord.  Which  hypothesis  is  the  more  probable 
the  reader  may  judge. 

A  single  instance  more  may  be  noted,  the  story  of 
the  empty  grave  (Luke  xxiv.  i-ii;  Mark  xvi.  1-4). 
Luke  mentions  one  woman  by  name  who  does  not 
appear  in  Mark.  Luke  says  that  two  men  appeared  to 
the  women  in  the  grave,  while  Mark  mentions  but 
one.  According  to  Luke  they  ask  the  women  why 
they  seek  the  living  with  the  dead;  according  to  Mark 
they  say,  "Ye  seek  Jesus  the  Nazarene  who  was  cru- 
cified." The  latter  part  of  the  angelic  announcement 
in  Luke  is  wholly  different  from  what  is  attributed  to 
the  angel  in  Mark.  In  this  case,  as  in  the  preced- 
ing, it  is  impossible  to  regard  Luke  as  dependent  upon 
Mark.  And  so  we  might  go  on  through  two  score 
passages,  but  that  is  not  possible  here,  and  perhaps 
is  not  necessary.  The  quality  of  the  argument  has 
been  indicated  both  for  and  against  dependence. 

We  must  now  consider  briefly  the  relation  of 
Matthew  and  Mark.  The  prevalent  view  among  those 
who  hold  the  interdependence  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
is  that   Matthew   depended   upon    Mark.     There  are 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  3 1 

some  eighteen   sections   in   which  Matthew  and  Mark 
have  common  matter  not  found  in  Luke.     An  analysis 
of  these  shows  that  the  preponderance  of  evidence  is 
against  the  dependence  of  our  Matthew  upon  Mark.   In 
about  one  third  of  the  cases  it  would  be  possible  to  re- 
gard Matthew  as  dependent  upon  Mark/  but  in  the  re- 
maining two  thirds  the  argument  is  for  independence, 
and  the  two  thirds  are  more  decisively  against  depend- 
ence than  the  one  third  are  for  it.   The  character  of  the 
evidence  for   Matthew's   independence    may   be    seen 
from  the  consideration  of  one  or  two  passages.    Take, 
for  example,  the  question  of   divorce  which  the  Phar- 
isees  laid   before  Jesus  (Matt.   xix.    3-12;   Mark  x.    2- 
12).      According  to   Mark   the  point  is  whether  it  is 
lawful  at  all  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife,  and  the 
reply  is  an  absolute  negative.      According  to  Matthew 
the  Pharisees   ask  whether  a  man   may  put  away  his 
wife  for  every  eaiise,    and   the   reply  is  that   the  sole 
cause  for  which  he  may  put  her  away  is  fornication. 
Again,  in  Mark  Jesus  in   His  reply  proceeds  from  the 
Mosaic   legislation   back  to  the  original  institution  of 
the  Creator,  He   Himself   asking  the  Pharisees  what 
Moses  had  commanded;  but  in   Matthew  Jesus  sim- 
ply holds  up  the  original  institution,  and  then   when 

I.  Such  passages  are  the  following:  Matt,  iii,  4-6  on  Mark 
i.  4-6;  Matt.  xiv.  22-27  on  Mark  vi.  45-52;  Matt.  xv.  1-20  on  Mark 
vii.  1-23;  and  Matt.  xxvi.  6-13  on  Mark  xiv.  3-9. 


32  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Pharisees  ask  Him  why  Moses  commanded  to 
divorce  a  wife,  He  said  that  this  was  permitted  on 
account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts.  These  differ- 
ences are  scarcely  expHcable  if  Matthew  depended 
upon  Mark. 

Or  take  the  incident  of  the  fig-tree  which  withered 
(Matt.  xxi.  18-19,  20-22;  Mark  xi.  12-14,  20-26). 
Matthew  says  the  tree  withered  immediately,  and 
puts  the  consequent  conversation  in  the  same  hour, 
while  in  Mark  it  is  not  until  the  next  morning  that 
the  withering  of  the  tree  is  noticed,  and  of  course  the 
conversation  incident  upon  that  fact  occurs  then. 
We  must  accept  separate  sources  unless  we  suppose 
that  the  first  evangelist  deliberately  modified  Mark's 
report  in  order  to  heighten  the  impression  of  Christ's 
wonder-working  power;  but  against  this  supposition 
is  the  fact  that  the  first  evangelist  betrays  no  tend- 
ency to  exaggerate  the  power  of  Christ. 

The  evidence  against  Matthew's  dependence  upon 
Mark  remains  about  the  same  when  we  pass  from  the 
sections  peculiar  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  to  the  more 
numerous  ones  which  are  common  to  all  the  Synop- 
tists.  A  few  of  these  present  colorless  deviations  from 
Mark,  or  deviations  which  might  be  regarded  as  made 
for  a  purpose,  but  the  majority  seem  to  be  decidedly 
unfavorable    to    dependence.      The   character  of    the 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  33 

evidence  may  be  shown  by  a  few  passages  taken  at 
random.  First,  the  Baptist's  announcement  regarding 
Jesus  (Matt.  iii.  11-17;  Mark  i.  7-8).  The  Baptist 
says  in  Mark  that  he  is  not  worthy  to  loose  the  latchet 
of  the  Messiah's  sandals;  in  Matthew  he  says  that 
he  is  not  worthy  to  carry  His  shoes.  In  Mark  the 
Messiah  is  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit;  in  Mat- 
thew with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  ivith  fire.  Then  fol- 
low words  of  the  Baptist  for  which  Mark  has  no 
parallel  at  all.  Dependence  of  Matthew  upon  Mark  is 
here  out  of  the  question.  His  narrative  contains  the 
substance  of  Mark,  but  it  is  too  artificial  to  suppose 
that  he  took  the  narrative  of  Mark  and  inserted  here 
a  word  and  there  a  sentence.  Such  patchwork  com- 
position is  least  of  all  probable  in  an  age  when  many 
eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  Jesus  were  still  living  and 
when  the  stream  of  oral  tradition  flowed  copiously. 
Take  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  (Matt, 
iii.  13-17;  Mark  i.  9-11).  Matthew  enriches  Mark's 
narrative  with  the  conversation  between  Jesus  and  the 
Baptist,  which  presupposes  a  good  source;  but  more 
than  this,  in  the  common  matter  Matthew  is  inde- 
pendent. The  heavenly  voice  speaks  in  the  second 
person  in  Mark,  but  in  the  third  person  in  Matthew. 
In  Mark  it  bears  witness  to  Jesus  Himself;  in  Matthew, 

to  some  other,  presumably  to  the  Baptist.      Is  this  an 
3 


34  INTRODUCTION. 

intentional  change  by  the  first '  evangehst,  or  is  it 
rather  a  separate  tradition? 

In  the  narrative  of  the  incident  in  Gersa,  the  first 
evangehst  is  apparently  independent  of  the  second. 
He  has  ti<.w  demoniacs,  while  Mark  has  but  one,  and 
they  are  so   fierce  that   no  one  can  pass  by  that  way. 

Again,  Matthew's  brief  report  of  the  death  of  the 
Baptist  can  not  depend  upon  Mark,  for  it  is  at  variance 
with  it  (Matt.  xiv.  3-12;  Mark  vi.  17-29).  According 
to  Mark,  Herod  reverenced  John  and  protected  him; 
according  to  Matthew  he  wished  to  kill  him,  and 
would  have  done  so  but  for  his  fear  of  the  people. 
This  is  most  easily  explained  by  supposing  separate 
sources. 

Matthew's  description  of  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  though  so  closely  related  to  Mark,  is 
not  dependent  upon  it  (Matt.  xxvi.  26-29;  Mark  xiv. 
22-25).  In  connection  with  the  bread,  he  alone  has 
the  command  to  eat,  and  in  connection  with  the  cup, 
he  alone  has  the  command  that  all  should  di^ink  of  it. 
He  alone  says  that  the  blood  is  shed  unto  remission  of 
sins.  By  the  words  zvith  you  in  the  29th  verse  he 
makes  the  drinking  of  new  wine  in  the  kingdom  a 
celebration  of  the  reunion  with  the  disciples.  This 
thought  is  wanting  in  Mark.  Now  what  shall  we  say.^ 
That   a  Christian    disciple   of    the  second  generation 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  35 

took  the  liberty  thus  to  modify  words  of  Jesus  which 
must  have  been  regarded  as  especially  sacred,  or  that 
this  disciple  simply  had  a  fuller  source  than  the  second 
evangelist  had? 

Matthew's  description  of  the  scene  in  Gethsemane 
bears  evident  traces  of  being  independent  of  Mark 
(Matt.  xxvi.  36-46;  Mark  xiv.  32-42).  The  most 
noticeable  difference  is  in  the  prayers  of  Jesus.  In 
Mark  we  read,  *'  Abba,  Father,  all  things  are  possible 
to  Thee:  remove  this  cup  from  me."  In  Matthew  we 
read,  "Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me."  Mark  says  that  at  the  second  time  Jesus  spoke 
the  same  word:  he  does  not  record  it.  Matthew  gives 
the  second  prayer  and  it  is  different  from  the  first.  It 
is,  "My  Father,  if  this  cannot  pass  from  me  except 
I  drink  it.  Thy  will  be  done."  The  first  is  a  prayer 
that  the  cup  may  pass;  the  second  is  rather  a  prayer 
for  a  spirit  of  resignation.  Here  it  would  be  easier  to 
suppose  that  Mark  depended  upon  Matthew  than  that 
Matthew  depended  on  Mark,  but  neither  supposition 
is  satisfactory. 

Yet  one  more  illustration,  Peter's  denial  (Matt, 
xxvi.  69-75;  Mark  xiv.  66-72).  Matthew  has  some 
minute  circumstantial  details  not  in  Mark,  which  pre- 
suppose a  good  source.  Thus  Peter's  second  denial 
was  with  an  oath,  and  Peter  luent  out  before  he  wept. 


36  INTRODUCTION. 

These  details  are  surely  not  fictitious.  Then  there  are 
differences  where  the  substance  remains  unchanged, 
which  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  intentional  altera- 
tions by  Matthew.  Thus  Matthew  says  that  Peter 
was  without  in  the  court;  Mark  that  he  was  beloiv 
in  the  court.  Matthew  says,  "with  Jesus  the  Gali- 
lean"; Mark  "with  the  Nazarene  Jesus."  It  is  not 
easy  to  see  why  the  first  evangelist  made  these 
changes  if  he  was  dependent  upon  Mark,  but  they 
give  no  trouble  at  all  if  each  had  a  separate  source. 

There  is  another  fact  which  is  often  adduced  as 
proof  that  Matthew  and  Luke  are  dependent  upon 
Mark,  and  that  is  the  agreement  in  the  oi-der  in 
which  the  Synoptists  recount  the  various  events  of 
the  life  of  Jesus.  It  is,  of  course,  improbable  that 
three  persons  proceeding  independently  would  arrange 
in  the  same  order  a  large  number  of  biographical 
events,  which  might  with  equal  propriety  be  arranged 
in  different  ways.  But  let  us  notice  the  extent  to 
which  the  Synoptists  agree  in  this  point,  and  the 
character  of  the  matter  where  this  agreement  is  found. 

Of  some  eighty-three  paragraphs  which  the  Syn- 
optists have  in  common,  only  about  thirty-four  come 
in  the  same  order  in  all  three  narratives.  That  is  to 
say,  in  some  forty-nine  instances  the  Synoptists  do 
not  all  agree  in  the  order  of  their  narratives. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS.  37 

There  is  still  another  important  fact  to  be  noticed. 
More  than  half  the  cases  of  agreement  occur  in  the 
story  of  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  public  life  of 
Jesus,  where  the  evangelists  simply  follow  a  chrono- 
logical order.  Thus  they  all  speak  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, then  give  his  announcement  of  the  Messiah,  then 
proceed  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  to  His  temptation, 
to  His  return  into  Galilee,  and  the  beginning  of  His 
work  in  Capernaum.  So  far  there  is  not  the  slightest 
necessity  of  supposing  that  one  evangelist  got  his 
order  of  events  from  another.  All  have  simply  fol- 
lowed the  natural  historical  order,  and  consequently 
agree  with  each  other. 

Again,  in  the  story  of  the  sufferings,  death,  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  there  are  about  twelve  events 
which  are  found  in  the  same  order  in  all  three 
accounts;  but  here  also  the  order  is  simply  chrono- 
logical. The  next  thing  after  the  hour  in  Geth- 
semane  was  the  arrest  of  Jesus,  then  the  trial  by  the 
Sanhedrin  accompanied  by  Peter's  denial,  then  the 
trial  before  Pilate  ending  with  the  release  of  Barabbas, 
then  the  procession  to  Golgotha,  the  execution,  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection.  This  was  the 'natural  order, 
and  we  should  expect  it  to  be  substantially  observed 
by  all  who  were  telling  the  story  of  the  last  days  of 
the  earthly  career  of  Jesus,  whether  they  were  three 


38  INTRODUCTION. 

or  thirty.  The  remark  of  Renan  is  here  appHcable, 
that  there  was  at  bottom  but  one  way  of  telHng  the 
Hfe  of  Christ. 

The  story  of  the  days  spent  near  Caesarea  PhiHppi 
shows  the  same  order  of  events  in  all  the  Synoptists. 
The   confession    of    Peter    was    followed    by    Christ's 
announcement  of  His  death,  the  transfiguration,   the 
cure  of  the   epileptic  boy,  the  second  announcement 
of  death,  and  the  strife  among  the  apostles  as  to  who 
was  greatest.      Yet    here   the    agreement    in  order  is 
quite  explicable  without  the  assumption  of  a  common 
written   source.      The   first  three  events  are  in  logical 
order,  and  could   not   have   been    narrated  otherwise. 
The  agreement  in  the  order  of  the  others,  and  in  the 
events  that  immediately  followed   the   storm    on  the 
lake,    and   in   two   or   three    minor  groups  of  events, 
does  presuppose,  not  necessarily  a  written  source,  but 
at  least  a  stereotyped  and  fixed  oral  tradition.      This, 
then,  is  the  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  order  of  events. 
The  very  large  lack  of  agreement  favors  the  independ- 
ence of  the   Synoptists.      The  cases  of  agreement  are 
either  natural,  as  required  by  the  logical  or  chrono- 
logical order,  or  are  explained  by  a  written  source  or  a 
fixed  tradition. 

Such  then  is  the  quality,    and  such   the  extent  of 
the   evidence,  which   seems  to  justify  the  conclusion 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  39 

Stated  above,  that  our  Synoptic  Gospels  are  mutually 
independent.  It  follows  of  course  that  the  differences, 
sometimes  amounting  to  contradiction,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  intentional  changes  made  by  the  writers 
of  these  Gospels.  They  must  have  arisen  in  some 
other  manner. 

A  second  conclusion  which  appears  to  me  valid  is 
that  the  writers  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  had  to  some 
extent  written  sources.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
case  most  largely  with  the  third  evangelist,  and  to  the 
least  extent  with  the  second  evangelist.  The  only 
Synoptist  who  tells  us  anything  about  the  origin  of 
his  Gospel  is  Luke.  He  says  that  prior  to  his  time 
many  had  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  con- 
cerning the  things  which  had  been  fulfilled  among 
them  (Luke  i.  1-4).  These  unnamed  writers  had 
drawn  their  materials  from  those  who  had  been 
eye-witnesses  from  the  first,  an  expression  which 
of  course  applies  to  the  apostles,  but  not  to  them 
exclusively.  For  when  the  eleven  wished  to  fill 
the  place  made  vacant  by  the  treachery  of  Judas, 
there  were  .men  of  whom  Peter  could  say,  they 
''have  companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  went  in  and  went  out  among  us,  beginning 
from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  the  day  that  He 
was    received    up   from    us"    (Acts  i.    21-22).      They 


40  INTRODUCTION. 

put  forward  Joseph  Barsabbas  and  Matthias,  and 
the  latter  was  chosen. 

All  these  early  narratives  which  Luke  had  in  mind 
were  thus  based  on  personal  testimony,  and  yet  no  one 
of  them  was  wholly  satisfactory  to  Luke  for  the  purpose 
of  confirming  the  faith  of  Theophilus.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  some  of  these  narratives,  which 
Luke  knew  to  be  based  on  the  testimony  of  eye-wit- 
nesses and  ministers  of  the  word,  were  among  his 
sources  when  he  drew  up  his  own  Gospel.  He  him- 
self was  not  an  eye-witness,  and,  so  far  as  we  know, 
had  not  associated  with  eye-witnesses.  He  is  known 
to  us  as  the  companion  of  Paul.  Therefore  he  had  to 
depend  upon  the  witness  of  others,  and  it  seems  proba- 
ble that  these  written  narratives  were  of  special  value 
to  him,  as  his  life  was  not  spent  in  Palestine,  where 
he  would  be  in  contact^with  the  fullest  oral  tradition, 
but  in  Asia  Minor,  Greece  and  Rome.  It  is  altogether 
probable  that  Luke  was  more  largely  dependent  on 
written  sources  than  either  of  the  other  Synoptists. 
As  appears  from  the  foregoing  analysis  of  the  Synop- 
tists, there  is  no  reason  for  holding  that  among  the 
many  narratives  to  which  Luke  refers,  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  or  of  Matthew  was  included. 

With  reference  now  to  the  second  Gospel,  it 
might  be  thought  at  the  outset  that  there  is  no  neces- 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  4 1 

sity  of  assuminc^  any  written  source.  For  accordino^ 
to  the  well  known  testimony  of  Papias/  Mark  wrote, 
apparently  after  the  death  of  Peter,  what  he  remem- 
bered that  Peter  had  said.  This  living  apostolic 
source  might  be  supposed  to  render  any  other  source 
unnecessary.  But  we  should  be  giving  an  unwarrant- 
able importance  to  the  statement  of  Papias,  if  we 
concluded  from  it  that  Peter  was  the  exclusive  source 
of  the  second  Gospel,  or  if  we  held  that  the  second 
Gospel  has  preserved  all  that  Peter  taught,  and 
exactly  as  he  taught  it.  The  vividness  of  the  second 
Gospel,  its  numerous  touches  which  betray  the  eye- 
witness, and  its  superiority  in  those  sections  where 
Peter  alone  of  the  Synoptists  was  an  eye-witness, 
confirm  the  statement  of  Papias  regarding  Mark's  re- 
lation to  Peter,  but  it  can  not  be  held  that  Mark 
drew  from  no  other  source.  When  he  took  in  hand 
to  record  what  he  remembered  from  the  preaching  of 
Peter,  it  is  not  probable  that  he  found  himself  able  to 
recall  the  entire  matter  of  the  Gospel  as  we  have  it. 
Single  incidents  and  particular  sayings  he  may  have 
heard  from  Peter's  lips  so  often  that  they  were  in  dis- 
tinct remembrance,  but  it  is  unlikely  that  he  could 
reproduce  from  memory  the  whole  narrative  with  its 
almost    innumerable    details.       There    are     passages 

I.      See  Eusebius,  Ecclesiastical  History,  iii.  39. 


42  INTRODUCTION. 

which  from  their  nature  would  have  been  seldom  re- 
lated by  Peter;  for  example,  the  question  of  the 
Pharisees  regarding  divorce,  the  question  of  fasting, 
Herod's  opinion  of  Jesus,  and  the  discussion  regard- 
ing ceremonial  cleanness.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed 
that  in  such  portions  of  his  narrative  he  consulted  no 
other  source  than  his  memory  of  what  he  had  heard 
from  Peter.  But  whether  there  is  evidence  that  he 
used  any  ivritten  source  is  perhaps  still  an  open  ques- 
tion. Jiilicher^  thinks  there  is  no  stringent  proof  that 
Mark  had  any  written  sources.  Weizsacker  too, 
though  he  thinks  Mark  was  acquainted  with  the  so- 
called  Logia,  believes  that  he  made  very  little  use  of 
it.  On  the  other  hand,  Weiss  '■''  holds  that  Mark  must 
have  had  some  documentary  source,  such  being  nec- 
essary in  his  judgment  to  account  for  a  long  address 
like  the  Eschatological  Discourse;  and  Sanday  ^  also 
seems  to  let  Mark  as  well  as  Matthew  and  Luke  de- 
pend upon  a  common  written  source.  Others  think 
only  of  an  oral  tradition  as  underlying  Mark,  which 
however  had  become  almost  as  fixed  in  form  as 
though  it  had  been  written. 

In   regard  to  the  first  Gospel,  we  should  have  to 

1.  See  Ei7ileitung  j?i  das  N.   T.,  1894,  p.  226. 

2.  See  Das  Afostolische  Zcztalter,  1886,  p.  385. 

3.  See  Einleitiing  in  das  N.   T.,  1886,  p.  506. 

4.  See  A  Survey  of  the  Synoptic   Question  in   the  Expositor 
for  1891. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  45 

say  at  once  that  it  rests  in  part  upon  written  sources- 
were   it  plain  that  the  writing  which  Papias'  ascribed 
to    Matthew    included    only    the    sayings    of    Jesus. 
Scholars    are    about    equally   divided   on   this    point, 
many    limiting   the    Logia    which    Papias     says    that 
Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew,  to  the  words  of  Jesus,    or 
the  words  with    brief    narrative    settings,    and    many 
holding  that  the  term  might  have  been  used  with  per- 
fect propriety  to  describe  our  first  Gospel,  and  that 
Papias  really  had  this  book  in  mind.      However,  even 
on    the    assumption    that    our    first     Gospel    in    sub- 
stantially its   present  form  is  the  work  of  Matthew, 
there  is  not  a  little   probability  that  he    made  use  of 
written    sources.       For    the    Sermon    on    the    Mount" 
and    other    long    addresses    of    Jesus    can     scarcely 
have  been  reproduced  from  memory  after  the    lapse 
of    thirty    years    with     all    the     freshness    and    con- 
ciseness   which    mark    these    addresses.       It    seems 
probable  that  they  had    been   committed    to  writing 
by    some    one   long    before    the    composition    of    the 
present    Gospel. 

But  as  regards  the  necessity  of  assuming  written 
sources  to  explain  the  verbal  agreement  of  Matthew^ 
Mark  and  Luke,  it  does  not  appear  with  conclusive 
force.     A  strong  argument  can  be  made  for  it,  and  a 

I.     See  Eusebius,  Ecclesiastical  History,  iii.  37. 


44  INTRODUCTION. 

strong  argument  can  also  be  made  against  it.  The 
verbal  agreement  of  all  three  Synoptists  rarely  extends 
to  an  entire  verse,  even  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  and 
such  resemblances  are  perhaps  not  inconsistent  with 
oral  tradition,  especially  when  it  is  remembered  that 
these  three  narratives  originated  within  a  few  years  of 
each  other,  originated  among  those  who  had  the 
deepest  interest  in  the  story,  and  originated  while 
eye-witnesses  were  still  living.  If  we  could  assume 
with  Mr.  Wright  that  there  had  been  from  the  very 
beginning  systematic  and  thorough  catechetical 
instruction  in  the  Gospel  story,  instruction  which 
involved  a  careful  memorizing  of  the  different  parts 
of  that  story,  then  it  would  appear  still  less  necessary 
to  presuppose  written  sources  in  order  to  account  for 
the  verbal  agreement  between  the  Synoptists,  or  for 
their  agreement  in  the  order  of  narration. 

The  almost  unbroken  diversity  of  the  different 
reports  of  the  same  event  or  the  same  saying  of  Jesus 
is  unfavorable  to  any  extended  written  sources  for  the 
matter  common  to  all  three  Synoptists.  The  large 
element  of  wholly  peculiar  matter  in  each  Gospel, 
especially  in  the  first  and  third,  as  well  as  the  inde- 
pendence of  each  writer  in  presenting  that  matter 
which  he  has  in  common  with  the  others,  seems  to 
point  back  to   a  time  when  no   record  either   of   the 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  45 

words    or   deeds   of    Jesus   had    gained    a    recognized 
standing  in  the  Christian  community. 

I  have  now  stated  two  conclusions  based  upon  data 
found  in  the  Gospels  themselves.  There  is  another 
which  is  based  rather  on  the  laws  of  the  human  mind, 
and  on  that  which  we  know  of  the  history  of  the  New 
Testament  times.  It  is  that  the  disagreement  between 
the  Synoptists  in  regard  to  the  content  of  their  message 
is  to  be  set  down  largely  to  the  fact  that  there  were 
several  or  many  eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and 
partly  to  the  unconscious  or  even  designed  alterations 
by  those  who  repeated  the  story  over  and  over  in  the 
early  y^ars  of  the  Church. 

For  nearly  every  incident  in  the  life  of  Jesus  there 
wer*e  many  witnesses.  Even  on  the  mount  of  trans- 
figuration and  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  there  were 
three  disciples  with  Jesus,  and  when  He  hung  upon 
the  cross  there  was  one  apostle  near,  besides  several 
believing  women.  The  various  apostles  and  disciples 
saw  and  heard  each  with  his  own  eyes  and  ears,  and 
when  the  apostles  began  to  teach  after  Pentecost,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  they  all  taught  with  the  same  words. 
Each  taught  according  to  what  he  had  seen  and  heard. 
There  was  essential  agreement  in  their  testimony,  but 
all  degrees  of  difference  in  details. 

Now  without  doubt  the   apostles   were  the   chief 


46  INTRODUCTION. 

ultimate  source  from  which  flowed  the  Gospel  story. 
But  they  were  not  the  only  eye-witnesses.  There 
were"  many  believers  who  had  heard  some  of  the  Great 
Teacher's  words,  many  who  had  witnessed  this  or 
that  miracle.  Such  people  would  inevitably  tell  what 
they  had  seen  and  heard,  and  thus  little  Gospel  rivu- 
lets were  started  which  may  easily  have  reached  to 
the  time  when  our  Gospels  were  composed.  Indeed, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  the  oral  tra- 
dition, whether  from  apostolic  or  other  source,  was 
so  copious  and  well  attested  that  a  Papias  could  say 
that  he  preferred  it  to  the  written  Gospels.  The  air 
seemed  to  be  full  of  the  story  of  the  wonderful  life. 

It  seems  natural  and  indeed  inevitable  that  the 
oral  tradition  in  its  entirety  bore  the  stamp  of  diverse 
personalities.  Nor  was  this  stamp  effaced  as  time 
went  by,  and  the  Gospel  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth. 
It  persisted,  and  when  written  narratives  finally  ap- 
peared it  reappeared  in  them.  One  man  was  the 
author  of  each  of  our  present  Gospels,  but  the  ma- 
terial embodied  in  his  narrative  may  have  had,  ulti- 
mately, diverse  sources.  Luke  tells  us  that  he  traced 
the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first,  and 
to  judge  from  the  rich  content  of  his  narrative  he 
gleaned  widely.  To  how  many  unnamed  eye-witnesses 
the  separate  stories  of  his  Gospel  finally  reach,  no  one 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  4/ 

can  say.  The  second  Gospel  probably  preserves  the 
Petrine  style  of  teaching-,  and  largely  also  the  mater- 
ial used  by  Peter.  The  first  Gospel  bears  another 
stamp,  regarded  as  a  whole,  and  contains  many  de- 
tails which  may  have  come  originally  from  various 
sources. 

We  of  course  cannot  deny  to  the  evangelists  a  cer- 
tain freedom  in  the  use  of  the  material  in  their  hands, 
but  this  freedom  can  not  without  arbitrariness  be 
made  to  cover  and  account  for  all  the  phenomena  in 
question.  Multitudes  of  differences  between  the  Syn- 
optic Gospels,  including  the  majority  of  the  greater 
ones,  may  be  ascribed  most  naturally  to  the  original 
plurality  of  witnesses,  and  others  to  the  liberty  of  oral 
tradition,  especially  in  its  earlier  period. 

{d)  The  Historicity  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  The 
origin  of  the  first  three  Gospels  is  less  important  than 
the  question  of  their  historical  value,  but  fortunately 
this  latter  question  is  in  a  measure  independent  of  the 
former.  Scholars  may  substantially  agree  on  the  ques- 
tion of  historical  value  while  one  regards  the  Gospels 
as  based  on  oral  tradition,  another  on  written  docu- 
ments, and  yet  another  on  both  oral  and  written  sources. 
On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  particular  origin  may 
have  a  certain  bearing  on  the  historical  value.  Thus, 
for  example,  we   can   rate  the   historical   value  of  the 


48  INTRODUCTION. 

Synoptic  Gospels  higher  when  their  differences  are 
traced  to  different  witnesses  or  to  the  unconscious 
alterations  of  early  tradition,  than  when  these  differ- 
ences are  regarded  as  intentional  changes  made  by  the 
evangelists. 

Now  in  regard  to  the  historical  value  of  the  Syn- 
optists,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  essential  claims  which 
they  make  are  amply  verified  from  day  to  day  and 
from  year  to  year  by  the  most  reliable  spiritual  phe- 
nomena with  which  men  are  anywhere  acquainted.* 
The  written  Gospels  are  established  by  the  living 
Gospel. 

But  if  we  pass  by  this  aspect  of  the  subject  and 
look  at  the  Gospels  themselves,  we  shall  arrive  at  the 
same  result.  The  portraits  of  Christ,  drawn  by  the  first 
three  evangelists,  though  each  one  is  produced  in  part 
by  the  use  of  materials  not  found  elsewhere,  are  essen- 
tially one.  In  each  narrative  He  is  the  Messiah, 
equipped  with  Messianic  authority  to  teach,  to  heal, 
to  establish  the  Kingdom  of  God,  to  forgive  sin,  and 
to  be  the  final  judge  of  men.  In  each  narrative  He  is 
truly  human,  a  descendant  of  David,  living  His  life 
under  the  limitations  of  humanity.  According  to  each 
of  the  narratives  He  is  a  being  who  has  perfect  fellow- 
ship with  God,  and  who  lives  a  sinless  life.      In  each 

I   See  Dale,   The  Liviyig  Christ  and  the  Four  Gospels,  1890. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  49 

He  is  represented  as  loving  men,  as  setting  an  im- 
measurable value  upon  the  human  soul,  and  as  laying 
down  His  life  in  behalf  of  men.  These  truths  consti- 
tute the  essential  Gospel,  the  glad  tidings  of  great 
joy.  The  fact  that  these  three  independent  narra 
tives,  while  differing  in  a  multitude  of  details,  agree 
in  presenting  essentially  the  same  portrait  of  Jesus, 
is  a  strong  argument  for  their  historical  character. 
Their  origin  at  a  time  while  eye-witnesses  were  still 
living,  and  their  acceptance  among  believers  from 
that  early  day,  are  also  the  best  possible  evidence  of 
their  historical  trustworthiness.  This  is  a  conclusion 
that  has  stood  unshaken  through  the  centuries,  and 
was  never  more  completely  established  than  it  is 
to-day. 

But  this  claim  of  historicity  does  not  imply  that 
every  narrative  in  these  Gospels  must  be  regarded 
as  of  equal  historical  value.  There  are  details  in  one 
Gospel  which  are  contradicted  by  details  of  another. 
There  are  also  details  which  are  rendered  doubtful 
by  the  general  trend  of  the  entire  Gospel  in  which 
they  stand.  There  are  points  in  regard  to  which  we 
have  in  one  Gospel,  it  may  be  Mark,  the  testimony 
of  an  eye-witness,  but  which  are  differently  presented 
in  another  narrative  that  is  not  directly  from  an  eye- 
witness.     Peter,    the   chief  source  of    Mark,  was  the 

4 


50  INTRODUCTION. 

only  one  of  the  Synoptists  who  was  present  on  certain 
occasions  in  the  Hfe  of  Jesus;  for  example,  at  the  res- 
toration of  the  daughter  of  Jairus. 

Again,  there  are  events  described  which  no  one  of 
the  disciples  claims  to  have  witnessed;  for  example, 
the  descent  of  an  angel  on  Easter  morn,  his  rolling 
the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  tomb,  the  rending  of 
the  veil  in  the  temple  at  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  the 
appearance  of  the  risen  saints  who  entered  into  the 
holy  city  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  The  evi- 
dence for  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  is 
incomparably  fuller  and  more  conclusive  than  the 
evidence  that  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  at  His 
death,  or  that  the  stone  at  the  door  of  His  tomb  was 
actually  rolled'  back  by  an  angel.  We  may,  there- 
fore, affirm  that  the  claim  of  historicity  for  the  Syn- 
optic Gospels  as  a  whole  does  not  imply  that  all 
statements  of  these  narratives  are  of  equal  historical 
value. 

Again,  the  claim  of  historicity  for  the  Synoptists 
does  not  imply  that  the  impression  which  bystanders 
received  from  the  works  and  words  of  Jesus  was  always 
a  correct  one.  Thus,  for  example,  people  thought 
that  the  woman  who  touched  Christ's  garment  was 
healed  without  the  Master's  knowledge.  Mark  nar- 
rates  the    miracle    from    this   point  of  view  (Mark  v. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  5  I 

-9-30)-  But  this  was  doubtless  a  false  impression. 
The  miracles  of  Jesus  were  not  wrought  by  any  mag- 
netism, or  by  any  subtle  physical  force  which  people 
could  steal  from  Him  by  a  touch;  but  they  were 
wrought  by  an  act  of  His  will,  with  full  consciousness 
of  what  He  was  doing. 

As  His  acts  were  misunderstood  at  times,  so  also 
were  His  words,  and  that  even  by  his  own  disciples. 
But  this  is  so  manifest  that  we  need  not  dwell  upon  it 
here.  It  will  be  admitted  generally  that  the  claim  of 
historicity  for  the  narrative  does  not  imply  that  every 
comment  of  the  evangelist  on  the  life  and  teachings  of 
Jesus  is  necessarily  correct,  or  that  all  impressions 
made  by  Jesus  and  reflected  in  the  Gospels  are  right. 

But  the  evidence  for  the  historical  character  of  the 
essential  claims  of  the  Synoptists  is  so  abundant  and 
conclusive  that  one  ought  not  to  be  troubled  by  any 
of  the  concessions,  which  must  be  made  in  reference 
to  details.  '*  A  robuster  faith  in  the  Gospels  is  needed, 
which,  instead  of  always  seeking  to  deny  the  existence 
of  difficulties  or  to  explain  them  away,  shall  freely 
confess  them,  and  learn  the  lessons  which  they  teach.  "^ 

2.     The  Fourth  Gospel. 
The    fourth    Gospel    seems   to    me   a   trustworthy 
source   of    information    regarding    the    life    of    Jesus.. 

I  Wright,  The  Comf^ositioyi  of  the  Four  Gos;pels,  p.  163. 


52  INTRODUCTION. 

True,  it  begins  with  a  theological  passage  concerning 
the  prehistoric  Logos;  it  contains  a  considerable  ele- 
ment of  reflection  and  interpretation;  and  it  is  written 
with  the  avowed  purpose,  not  of  producingia  history 
of  Christ,  but  the  purpose  of  leading  men  to  believe 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  (John  xx.  31).  i\nd  yet 
these  facts  are  not  necessarily  prejudicial  to  the  his- 
torical character  of  the  words  which  the  writer  attrib- 
utes to  Jesus,  or  of  the  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
which  he  describes. 

{a)  The  Narratives  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  There 
are  some  considerations  in  regard  to  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  narrative  portions  of  the  fourth  Gospel 
which  may  properly  be  stated  here  in  a  general  way. 
First,  this  narrative,  while  chiefly  independent  of  the 
Synoptists,  often  supplements  them  in  a  manner  that 
awakens  confidence  in  the  author's  acquaintance  with 
the  subject.  The  fourth  Gospel's  independence  of  the 
Synoptists,  with  perhaps  some  slight  exceptions,' is 
manifest  on  every  hand,  though  denied  by  Schiirer^  and 
Jiilicher.^  It  not  only  contains  a  large  amount  of  matter 
unknown  to  the  first  three  Gospels,  but  in  that  which 
it  shares  with  them,  it  evidently  draws  from  an  inde- 
pendent source.      Thus   in    the   short   story  of    Christ 

1  See  Sanday,  Contcynporary  Revicio,  1891. 

2  See  The  Fourth  Gospel  m  Contemporary  Ret'ieiv,  1891. 

3  See  Kiiileitnug  in  das  X.   7'.,  1894. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  53 

upon  the  lake  (John  vi.  17-21),  which  is  given  also 
by  Mark  and  Matthew,  the  fourth  Gospel  alone  has 
the  following  important  details.  It  tells  us  that  the 
disciples  embarked  at  even,  that  they  started  for 
Capernaum,  that  Jesus  had  not  yet  eonie  to  tJieni,  that 
they  rowed  twenty-five  or  thirty  fur/ongs,  that  Jesus 
/-/reic  )iear  to  the  boat,  and  that  after  Jesus  came  to 
them  tJie  boat  was  immediately  at  the  land.  Or  take 
the  anointing  in  Bethany  which  John  has  in  common 
with  Mark  and  Matthew  (John  xii.  1-8).  His  narra- 
tive is  fuller  than  the  others  of  such  touches  as  we 
might  expect  from  an  eye-witness.  Thus  he  alone 
tells  us  that  the  supper  at  which  Jesus  was  anointed 
was  six  days  before  the  %  Passover,  that  Martha  served, 
that  La. car  us  sat  at  meat  with  [esus,  that  it  was 
Mary  who  brought  the  ointment,  that  she  anointed 
the  feet  of  Jesus,  that  she  wiped  them  with  her  hair, 
that  the  house  zi'as  filled  with  the  odor,  and  that 
I udas  murmured.  These  incidents  illustrate  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  fourth  Gospel;  and  what  is  shown  in 
regard  to  these  two  passages  is  manifest  in  the  others 
which  John  has  in  common  with  the  Synoptists.  His 
narrative  plainl}^  flows  from  an  independent  source. 

Thus  far  we  have  had  the  Synoptists  in  view.     But 
it  is  affirmed,  for  example,  by  Holtzmann/  that  Paul- 

I   See  Ei)ileilung  in  das  X.    7. ,  p.  452. 


54  INTRODUCTION. 

inisjfi  is  the  lowest  foundation  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
and  is  in  part  the  source  of  its  expressions.  He  com- 
pares John  i.  12  with  Gal.  iii.  26;  John  i.  17  with 
Rom.  vi.  14;  John  vii.  19  with  Rom.  ii.  17-19;  and 
finds  other  resemblances  of  the  same  sort.  But  these 
resemblances,  so  natural  in  the  writings  of  two  con- 
temporary disciples  both  of  whom  were  Jews,  both 
apostles,  and  both  dealing  with  the  same  great  reve- 
lation, are  far  from  establishing  even  a  slight  relation- 
ship of  dependence;  and  a  relationship  of  dependence 
in  the  matter  of  a  few  words  or  sentences,  even  if 
established,  would  constitute  no  valid  argument 
against  the  authenticity  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  "  Lit- 
erary dependence  of  one  writer  upon  another  is  one  of 
the  commonest  phenomena  all  through  the  Bible  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation."^ 

But  the  fourth  Gospel,  while  plainly  independent 
Df  the  Synoptists,  often  supplements,  explains,  and 
justifies  them  in  a  way  impossible  to  a  writer  of  the 
second  century.  Thus  Mark  and  Matthew  tell  us  that 
after  feeding  the  five  thousand  near  Bethsaida,  Jesus 
constrained  His  disciples  to  enter  into  a  boat  and 
start  for  the  west  side  of  the  lake  (Mark  vi.  45;  Matt, 
xiv.  22).  This  word  constrained  implies  a  strong  un- 
willingness on  the  part   of  the   disciples   to   return   to 

I   See  Contejnporary  Rcfieiv,  1891. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  55 

the  west  shore,  but  the  Synoptists  do  not  intimate  wJiy 
they  were  unwilHng  to  return.  The  key  to  this  diffi- 
culty is  furnished  by  John,  who  tells  us  that  after  the 
miracle  and  in  consequence  of  it,  the  multitudes  were 
wrought  up  to  such  a  pitch  of  enthusiasm  for  Jesus 
that  they  were  ready  to  attempt  to  force  Him  to 
become  king  (John  vi.  15).  Of  course  the  disciples 
were  unwilling  to  leave  their  Master  when  the  air 
was  charged  with  this  excitement. 

Again  the  Synoptists  leave  us  in  doubt  regarding 
the  movements  of  Judas  on  the  last  evening.  Mark 
and  Matthew  tell  us  nothing  about  him  from  the  time 
when  Jesus  announced  that  one  of  those  with  Him  at 
the  table  would  betray  Him,  until  the  hour  of  the 
arrest.  We  could  not  learn  from  them  whether  Judas 
partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Luke,  however,  puts 
the  institution  of  the  Supper  before  the  remark  of 
Jesus  that  ''the  hand  of  him  who  betrayeth  Me  is 
with  Me  on  the  table"  (Luke  xxii.  21),  and  this 
implies  that  Judas  partook  of  the  Supper.  Here  the 
fourth  Gospel  comes  in  with  important  information. 
It  supplements  the  narrative  of  Mark  and  Matthew, 
and  reverses  the  order  of  events  which  Liike  gives. 
It  says  that  when  Judas  received  the  sop  from  Jesus 
with  the  accompanying  words,  "that  thou  doest  do 
quickly,"  he  went  out   straightway  (John  xiii.  27-30). 


56  INTRODUCTION. 

This  must  have  been  early  in  the  evening,  for  some  of 
those  at  the  table  thought  Judas  had  gone  to  buy 
things  for  the  feast,  others  that  he  had  gone  out  to 
give  something  to  the  poor.  And  further,  when  it  had 
once  been  announced  by  Jesus  that  one  of  the  apostles 
should  betray  Him,  and  they  were  thereby  thrown  into 
a  state  of  wondering  sorrow,  each  asking,  "  Is  it  I.'"  it 
is  most  probable  that  the  moment  did  not  pass  with- 
out some  intimation  from  Jesus  to  Judas  that  he  was 
the  one  (comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  25).  If  this  intimation 
was  given,  then  we  are  obliged  to  associate  John's 
record  with  this  moment,  and  hold  that  the  departure 
of  Judas  preceded  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  is  con- 
firmed by  the  inherent  probabilit}^  of  the  case.  It  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  Jesus  desired  to  speak  His 
farewell  words  in  a  circle  freed  from  the  oppressive 
presence  of  the  traitor.  It  should  be  noticed  before 
leaving  this  incident  that  the  passage  with  which 
the  fourth  Gospel  supplements  the  Synoptists  bears 
throughout  the  clearest  imaginable  stamp  of  genuine- 
ness. We  see  a  disciple  reclining  on  the  bosom  of 
Jesus.  Peter  beckons  and  whispers  to  him  that  he 
should  find  out  of  whom  Jesus  was  speaking.  Jesus 
whispers  a  sign  to  the  disciple  reclining  on  His  bosom, 
and  then  speaks  a  word  to  Judas  which  the  rest  did 
not   understand.      Some   thought   it  meant  one  thing. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  57 

some  another.  All  this  is  the  language  of  an  eye- 
witness, and  is  utterly  inexplicable  as  an  ideal  picture 
dating  from  the  second  century. 

Another  illustration  of  the  point  in  hand  is  fur- 
nished by  the  story  of  the  crucifixion.  According  to 
Mark  and  Matthew,  when  Jesus  uttered  the  cry,  "  My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me,"  a  man 
ran  and  gave  Him  drink  (Mark  xv.  36;  Matt,  xxvii. 
48).  But  this  act  stands  in  no  logical  relation  with 
the  cry.  Why  should  these  words  of  mental  anguish 
lead  any  one  to  give  Jesus  physical  refreshment  ? 
Here  is  a  manifest  obscurity.  The  fourth  Gospel 
removes  it  by  telling  us  that  Jesus  uttered  the  word, 
"I  thirst"  (John  xix.  28).  It  was  on  account  of  this 
cry,  therefore,  that  the  drink  was  given  to  Him. 

These  cases  may  suffice  to  show  how  this  narra- 
tive of  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  is  manifestly  inde- 
pendent of  the  Synoptists,  fits  into  the  Synoptic  story, 
completing,  explaining,  and  justifying  it,  as  w^e  might 
expect  from  the  narrative  of  an  independent  eye- 
witness, but  as  we  certainly  could  not  expect  from  a 
romance-writer  of  the  second  century. 

Again,  the  trustworthiness  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
as  regards  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus  w^hich  are 
therein  recorded,  seems  to  receive  additional  support 
from  the  fact  that  it  does  not  hesitate  to  depart   from 


58  INTRODUCTION. 

the  representations  of  the  Synoptists.  For  it  is  gen- 
erally admitted  that  its  author  was  acquainted  with  the 
Synoptists^  and  he  probably  knew  at  least  as  much  as 
we  regarding  their  indirect  apostolic  origin.  It  s^ems 
probable  that  two  of  them,  Mark  and  Matthew,  had 
been  in  use  many  years  before  the  fourth  Gospel  was 
written,  and  that  Luke,  also,  had  been  known  for  a 
decade.  Such  being  the  case,  a  new  and  divergent 
narrative  could  scarcely  have  received  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  churches  unless  it  was  supported  by 
unquestionable  historical  acquaintance  with  the  facts 
and  by  apostolic  authority. 

As  examples  of  what  is  meant  by  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel's divergence  from  the  Synoptists,  we  may  mention 
the  following  cases.  The  Synoptists  put  the  trium- 
phal entry  on  the  same  day  with  the  journey  from 
Jericho,  but  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel  it  came  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  after  Jesus  had  spent  a  day 
and  two  nights  in  Bethany  (Mark  xi.  i;  Matt.  xxi.  i; 
Luke  xix.  28-29;  John  xii.  i).  The  Synoptists  put 
the  anointing  in  Bethany  two  days  before  the  Passover 
(Mark  xiv.  i;  Matt.  xxvi.  2);  the  fourth  Gospel  puts  it 
six  days  before  the  feast  (John  xii.  i).  The  second 
Gospel  says  that  Jesus  was  crucified  the  third  hour 
(Mark   xv.    25);   the  fourth   Gospel  says  it  was  about 

I  See  Holtzmann,  EinleitiDig ,  p.  453. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  59 

the  sixtJi  hour  when  Pilate  passed  judgment  on  Jesus 
(John  xix.  14).  The  Synoptists  represent  the  burial 
of  Jesus  as  being  performed  hastily,  the  body  being 
simply  wound  in  a  linen  cloth  (Mark  xv.  46;  Matt, 
xxvii.  59-60;  Luke  xxiii.  53-54);  the  fourth  Gospel  says 
it  was  embalmed  as  the  custom  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury, 
and  that  about  one  hundred  pounds  of  myrrh  and 
aloes  were  used  (John  xix.  39-40).  It  is  impossible  that 
such  a  narrative  was  received  by  the  Church  early 
in  the  second  century  unless  it  was  known  to  proceed 
from  a  man  of  recognized  authority. 

{b)  The  Discourses  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Thus 
far  we  have  considered  the  fourth  Gospel's  narrative 
of  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  It  remains  to  in- 
dicate briefly  why  its  report  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
is  also  regarded  as  essentially  trustworthy.  I  say 
essentially  trustworthy,  for  I  think  it  is  to  be  admitted 
at  the  outset  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  not  given 
with  the  same  historical  accuracy,  as  regards  its  form, 
that  characterizes  the  Synoptic  version.^  It  has  re- 
ceived a  deep  personal  coloring  from  the  devoted  and 
profound  mind  through  which  it  has  passed.  This 
appears  from  the  wide  difference  between  the  Johan- 
nean  discourses  of  Jesus   and   His  words  as  recorded 


I  See  Weiss,  Einleitung,  p.  605;  Sanday  in  Co7iicmpo)-ary 
Rez'iczv,  1891;  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  i.  127-130;  Watkins, 
Bampton  Lectures,  i8go,  p.  426. 


6o  INTRODUCTION. 

by  the  Synoptists,  both  as  to  style  and  construction. 
It  appears  also  from  the  fact  that  the  discourses  of 
Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  are  sometimes  indistinguish- 
able from  the  words  of  the  evangelist.  We  can 
scarcely  admit  all  that  Holtzmann^  claims,  that  "the 
addresses,  formally  considered,  are  the  property  of 
the  author,"  and  that  "  they  form  a  compact  mass  with 
the  explanations  of  the  evangelist  as  regards  language 
and  content";  but  that  there  is  a  considerable  element 
of  truth  in  the  claim  nearl}^  all  scholars  admit.  It  is 
not  necessary  therefore  to  dwell  on  this  point. 

The  report  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  accepted  as  essentially  trustworthy  because, 
first,  its  portrait  of  Christ,  notwithstanding  many 
peculiarities,  is  in  fundamental  harmony  with  that  of 
the  Synoptists.  Thus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  Jesus 
claims  a  unique  knowledge  of  God  (John  iii.  13;  v. 
20;  vi.  46;  xvii.  11-12,  25),  a  unique  mission  from 
God  (John  v.  36;  vi.  29;  vii.  28;  viii.  42;  xvii.  18), 
and  a  unique  union  with  God  (John  xiv.  lO-ii;  xv. 
22-24;  xvii.  2I-22J.  These  claims  are  elaborated  in 
the  fourth  Gospel  beyond  what  we  have  in  the  Synop- 
tists, but   the  claims  themselves  are   not   new.      Mat- 


I  See  Einleitiing,  p.  461.  But  we  must  agree  with  Holtzmann, 
also  Weiss  and  Sanday.  as  against  Wendt,  that  the  fourth  Gospel 
has  an  "  essential  and  indissoluble  unity."  It  cannot  be  divided  into 
earlier  and  later  parts. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  6l 

thew   and   Luke  record  words  of  Jesus  which  involve 
all   these   claims   (e\  g.  Matt.  xi.    25-27;    Luke  x.  21- 
22).      Thus  they     represent    Jesus    as    saying,     ''AH 
things  have  been   delivered   unto  me   by  my  Father." 
That    implies    all    that    is  said  in   the  fourth  Gospel 
about  the  unique   mission  of  Jesus.      Again,  we  read 
in  the  Synoptists,   ' '  No  man  knoweth  the  Father  save 
the  Son."     Here   is  the  claim  of   a  unique  knowledge 
of  the   Father   as  clear  and   as   strong  as  that  of   the 
fourth  Gospel.      And  these  two  claims   imply  all   that 
is  meant  by  the  fourth  Gospel  in  its  claim  of  a  unique 
union  of  Jesus  and  the  Father.      The  very  conscious- 
ness of    Messiahship,  which  is  as  positive  in  the  Syn- 
optists   as    in    John,    implies   a  consciousness   of    an 
altogether  peculiar  relation   to  the  Father.      Take  the 
testimony  that  came   to  the  soul  of   Jesus  in  the  hour 
of  baptism,    "Thou   art   my  beloved  Son,  in  Thee  I 
am  well  pleased "  (Mark  i.    11).      The  Christology  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  does  not  go  beyond  this. 

It  is  true  that  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  alludes 
to  His  pre-existence,  and  does  not  in  the  Synoptists. 
Much  has  been  made  of  this  point  by  some  writers. 
But  the  conviction  of  pre-e^istence  is  by  no  means 
alien  to  the  consciousness  of  Messiahship,  which  we 
have  in  the  Synoptists.  To  Jesus,  as  conscious  of 
Messianic  character,  the  Old  Testament  teaching  that 


62  INTRODUCTION. 

the  eternal  Jehovah  is  manifested  in  the  Messiah  (Is. 
vii.  14;  ix.  6),  and  that  the  goings  forth  of  the  Mes- 
siah have  been  from  everlasting  (Mic.  v.  2),  would 
bring  the  thought  of  His  pre-existence  very  near. 
Moreover,  the  thought  of  pre-existence  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  that  is  in  tJic  words  of  Jcsiis,  is  in  no  sense 
a  vital  feature  of  the  Messiah,  but  appears  incident- 
ally.^ This  point  has  not  always  been  recognized. 
Holtzmann,^  for  example,  presses  the  words  of  Jesus 
in  John  iii.  11- 12;  vi.  46;  x.  18,  and  finds  in  them 
the  thought  of  pre-existence.  This  view,  however,  is 
exegetically  untenable.  .  Jesus  never  claims  to  have 
been  taught  by  the  Father  before  He  came  into  the 
world.  As  a  rule  He  uses  the  present  tense  when 
speaking  of  the  Father's  communications  to  Him 
(John  V.  20,  30;  xiv.  10).  Thus  the  Father  sJiozvs 
Him  from  day  to  day  what  He  does,  and  Jesus  speaks 
what  He  sees  and  Jiears  with  the  Father  in  the  per- 
fect spiritual  fellowship  which  He  has  with  Him. 

And  moreover  the  teaching  of  Jesus  that  His  union 
with  the  Father  is  morally  conditioned  {e.  g.  John  viii. 
29;  XV.  10)  certainly  involves  that  His  unique  knowl- 
edge of  the  Father  was  acquired  in  His  earthly  life. 
Therefore  it  cannot  be  affirmed  that  in  the  words  of 

1  Comp.  Delff,  Stndien  imd  Kritiken,  1892,  p.  99. 

2  See  Einleitung,  p.  455. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  63 

Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence  appears  otherwise  than  in  an  incidental 
manner. 

We  have  said  that  the  portrait  of  Christ  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  is  in  fundamental  harmony  with  that  of 
the  Synoptists.  But  Holtzmann'  finds  a  repression  of 
the  true  humanity  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  which 
corresponds  to  that  exaggeration  of  His  divinity  which 
is  found  in  this  Gospel  by  the  same  writer.  He  sees 
this  repression  in  the  matter  of  Christ's  inner  devel- 
opment, in  connection  also  with  the  baptism,  the 
temptation,  the  need  of  prayer,  the  struggle  in  Geth- 
semane,  and  the  sufferings  on  the  cross.  But  if,  when 
he  speaks  of  inner  development,  he  thinks  of  Christ's 
Messianic  consciousness,  then  we  may  reply  that  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  also  there  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever that  Jesus  was  more  certain  of  His  Messiahship 
at  the  end  of  His  ministry  than  He  was  at  the  begin- 
ning. There  was  development  in  the  disciples'  apprc- 
Jioision  of  His  Messiahship  in  the  Synoptists  and  also 
in  John,  but  the  Synoptic  narrative  brings  before  us  a 
Christ  who  from  the  hour  of  His  baptism  had  a  serene 
and  perfect  assurance  of  His  Messiahship. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  is  not  said  to  have  had  any  significance  for  Jesus 

I  See  Einleitiiyig  in  das  X.  T.,  p.  455. 


64  INTRODUCTION. 

Himself,  but  to  have  been  a  sign  for  the  Baptist  (John 
i.  32-34);  true  also  that  the  temptation,  the  struggle 
in  Gethsemane,  and  the  cry  of  loneliness  on  the  cross, 
are  omitted;  but  it  is  surely  unjustifiable  to  argue  from 
this  silence  that  the  author  wishes  to  repress  the 
humanity  of  Christ.  These  events  had  been  described 
by  the  Synoptists,  and  as  a  rule  the  fourth  Gospel 
brings  forward  other  matter  than  is  contained  in  the 
first  three.  But  further,  how  can  this  view  of  Holtz- 
mann  have  any  weight  in  view  of  such  decided  affir- 
mations of  the  humanity  of  Jesus  as  we  tind  for 
example,  in  John  iv.  6,  where  Jesus  is  represented  as 
being  wearied  with  His  journey;  in  iv.  22,  where  He 
joins  Himself  with  the  Jews,  and  says,  "  We  worship 
that  which  we  know;"  in  v.  19,  where  Jesus  explicitly 
repudiates  what  the  Jews  and  Holtzmann  affirm  that 
He  claimed,  namely,  equality  with  God.  He  declares 
on  the  contrary  that  He  is  wholly  dependent  upon  the 
Father.  And  what  becomes  of  Holtzmann's  state- 
ment, in  view  also  of  John  viii.  40,  where  Jesus 
speaks  of  Himself  as  "a  man  that  hath  told  you  the 
truth;"  and  xi.  35,  where  it  is  said  that  Jesus  rc'r// — as 
strong  and  expressive  an  evidence  of  His  humanity  as 
anything  in  the  Synoptists;  and  xx.  17,  where  Jesus 
says,  "  My  Father  and  your  Father,  ;//]'  God  and  your 
God.?" 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  65 

These  passages  are  also  a  sufficient  answer  to  the 
point  that  the  Christ  of  the  fourth  Gospel  does  not 
betray  a  need  of  prayer  as  does  the  Christ  of  the 
Synoptists.  Holtzmann  cites  in  support  of  this  ob- 
jection John  xi.  42,  where  Jesus  says  that  His  words 
of  thanksgiving  are  spoken  on  account  of  the  multi- 
tude; also  xii.  30  and  xvii.  13.  But  the  first  of  these 
passages,  which  alone  has  even  an  apparent  perti- 
nence, proves  the  very  opposite  of  what  it  is  thought 
to  prove.  For  when  Jesus  says,  ' '  I  knew  that  Thou 
hearest  me  ahvays,''  it  is  certainly  plain  that  He  was 
in  the  habit  of  praying. 

But  this  is  enough.  He  who  seeks  to  show  that 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  minimizes  the  human- 
ity of  Jesus  has  a  large  task  on  his  hands,  and  must 
discover  a  great  deal  more  and  better  evidence  than 
this  writer  adduces  before  his  assertion  will  have  any 
plausibility. 

Again,  the  essential  trustworthiness  of  that  version 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  which  we  have  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  supported  by  the  two-fold  fact  that  in 
numerous  points  it  differs  from  the  Synoptic  version, 
while  at  the  same  time  its  peculiarities  are  consistent 
with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptists.  It  has 
its  peculiarities,  just  as  we  should  expect  if  the  Gospel 
is  from  an  independent  and   able  source.      The  teach-- 


66  INTRODUCTION. 

ing  of  Jesus  is  by  no  means  identical  in  Mark  and 
Matthew,  or  Mark  and  Luke.  Still  less  should  we 
expect  that  a  man  capable  of  producing  the  fourth 
Gospel,  a  man  of  the  speculative  and  imaginative 
power  which  appears  there,  and  in  the  first  epistle  by 
the  same  author,  not  to  mention  the  Apocalypse, — 
that  a  man  of  such  gifts  would  have  received  the  same 
impressions  from  the  Great  Teacher  which  Peter 
received,  or  would  have  emphasized  the  same  truths. 
In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  regarding  Himself,  and  re- 
garding His  Successor  with  His  disciples,  regarding 
the  future  of  His  cause,  and  other  points,  the  fourth 
Gospel  has  peculiarities,  in  some  cases  very  notewor- 
thy, but  these  peculiar  features  combine-harmoniously 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Synoptists.  They  complete, 
rather  than  mar  the  great  portrait.  This  proposition 
can  not  be  proven  here  in  detail,  but  one  or  two  illustra- 
tions of  its  provableness  may  appropriately  be  given. 
Every  thoughtful  reader  of  the  Gospels  is  struck 
by  the  fact  that  while  Jesus,  according  to  the  Synop- 
tists, did  not  make  a  public  verbal  claim  to  Messiah- 
ship  till  near  the  close  of  His  ministry,  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  we  have  the  most  outspoken  claim  almost  at 
the  beginning  of  the  public  work.  Furthermore,  this 
contrast  is  heightened  by  the  fact  that  according  to 
the   Synoptists   there  is  an  effort  on   Christ's  part  to 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  6/ 

prevent  the  proclamation  of  Himself  as  the  Messiah. 
Thus  He   enjoined   silence   upon  the   demoniacs  who 
addressed   Him   as   the    Son  of   God   (Mark  i.   34;  iii. 
12,    etc.).      Again,    He   insisted  that   those    who   had 
witnessed  the  raising  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  should 
not  tell  of  it  (Mark  v.  43),    and  when  the  apostles  at 
Caesarea   Philippi   confessed  that   they  still    believed 
Him   to   be   the    Messiah,    though   most  people   were 
turning  from  Him,  He  charged  them  not  to  tell  abroad 
that  He  was  the  Messiah  (Matt.  xvi.  20).      Now  these 
representations  seem  to  reveal  a  radical  difference  of 
policy,  if  not  a  radical  difference  in  the  apprehension 
of   His   Messiahship,    but   this  is  not  really  the  case. 
There  are  two  facts  which  must  be  taken  into  consid- 
eration.     First,  it  seems  that  in   Galilee,  the  home  of 
the  inflammable  Zealot  party  (see  Acts  v.  37;  Mark  iii. 
i8j,  the  populace  were  more  readily  moved   to  insur- 
rectionary steps  than  in  Judea.      So  Jesus  forbade  the 
leper,  whom  He  had  healed  in   Galilee,  to  tell  of  the 
miracle  (Mark  i.  44);  but  across  the  lake,  in  the  semi- 
Gentile  Decapolis,  He  commanded  the   healed  demo- 
niac  to   do  just    what   He   had  prohibited  in   Galilee 
(Mark  v.   19).      So   it   seems  not  improbable  that  the 
Galilean  character  itself  may  account  in  some  meas- 
ure for  the   reserve   of    Jesus   in   regard  to  all   merely 
verbal  claims  to  Messiahship. 


68  INTRODUCTION. 

The  second  fact  to  be  taken  into  consideration  is 
yet  more  important.  It  is  true  that  according  to  the 
Synoptists  the  pubhc  verbal  claim  to  Messiahship 
was  made  late  in  the  ministry,  and  then  not  in  Galilee 
but  in  Jerusalem;  but  it  is  also  true  that  Messiahship 
was  virtually  ^nd  fully  claimed  even  from  the  begin- 
ning of  Christ's  public  work.  Thus  demoniacs  are 
said  to  have  recognized  Jesus  as  the  Holy  One  of  God, 
and  He  did  not  deny  it  (Mark  i.  24J.  He  claimed 
authority  to  forgive  sin  (Mark  ii.  10).  He  said  that 
He  was  lord  of  the  Sabbath  and  greater  than  the  tem- 
ple (Mark  ii.  28;  Matt.  xii.  6),  He  claimed  to  be  the 
fulfiller  of  the  law  (Matt.  v.  17).  He  said  that  all 
things  had  been  delivered  unto  Him  by  the  Father 
(Matt.  xi.  27).  Thus  it  appears  that  He  laid  claim  to 
Messiahship  from  the  very  beginning  of  His  ministry 
according  to  the  Synoptists  as  well  as  according  to  the 
fourth  Gospel. 

In  view  of  this  virtual  claim  to  Messiahship  which 
we  find  at  the  beginning  of  the  Synoptic  narrative, 
the  argument  of  Schiirer'  and  Wendt^  against  the  his- 
torical character  of  John  i.  33-34,  loses  much  of  its 
interest. 

Or   we    may   take   the   doctrine   of    the  parousia. 

1  See  Contemn  for  my  Revicu',  1891. 

2  See  Die  I.rlire  /esti.  vol.  i.,  1886. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS.  69 

This  is  prominent  in  the  Synoptists,  but  does  not 
once  appear  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  Here  we  have  the 
thought  of  Christ's  spiritual  presence  with  His  dis- 
ciples; but  with  the  exception  of  one  somewhat 
uncertain  allusion  (John  xxi.  22),  no  reference  to  a 
future  coming.  But  there  is  no  incongruity  between 
the  idea  of  spiritual  presence  and  the  idea  of  the 
parousia.  The  fourth  Gospel  rather  supplements  the 
Synoptic  teaching.  Both  ideas  alike  are  involved  in 
the  conception  of  Messiahship.  Jesus,  because  con- 
scious of  being  the  Messiah,  knew  that  He  should  rise 
from  the  dead,  and  that  in  coming  time  His  cause 
would  rise  and  triumph.  He  knew  also  that  He  should 
judge  men.  But  for  the  same  reason  He  knew  that 
His  death  and  removal  from  the  sight  of  His  disciples, 
would  not  mean  that  they  were  to  be  left  orphans. 
In  that  case  His  Kingdom  could  not  continue.  Out 
of  the  same  consciousness  of  Messiahship  in  which  the 
conviction  of  a  future  return  was  rooted,  there  sprang 
inevitably  the  conviction  of  a  continuation  of  vital 
contact  between  Him  and  His  disciples,  to  be  realized 
in  His  spiritual  Successor. 

But  this  line  cannot  be  continued  further.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  define  the  position  which  is  taken. 
The  trustworthy  character  of  the  fourth  Gospel's 
report  both  of  the  outward  course  of  the  life  of  Jesus 


/O  INTRODUCTION. 

and  also   of  His  teaching   is   accepted,  and   accepted 
simply  on  critical  and  historical  grounds. 

While  holding  the  historical  trustworthiness  of 
the  fourth  Gospel,  I  would  not  deny  all  weight  to  the 
objections  which  are  urged  by  such  scholars  as  Schiirer, 
Holtzmann,  and  Jtilicher;  but  they  do  not  make  out  a 
case  It  may  be  noticed  in  passing  that  these  writers^ 
deal  chiefly  with  the  internal  evidence,  and  thev  doubt- 
less  regard  this  as  of  paramount  importance.  We 
must  not,  however,  undervalue  the  external  evidence, 
or  forget  that  it  has  been  growing  more  and  more  in- 
vincible from  year  to  year.  ^  It  is  an  exceedingly  stub- 
born fact  for  those  to  deal  with  who  deny  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  fourth  Gospel.  It  would  not  be  strange 
if  they  should  seek  comfort  in  other  quarters. 

Some  of  the  objections  of  these  writers  have  been 
touched  already.  There  is  yet  one  which  is  urged 
over  and  over  again,  to  which  I  wish  briefly  to  refer. 
It  is  that  the  Galilean  fisherman,  who  as  late  as  52  A, 
D.  was  an  apostle  of  the  circumcision  (Gal.  ii.  9), 
"a  narrow  legal  Christian,"  could  not  have  developed 
into  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  who  is  radically 
opposed  to  the  Jewish  people,  who  thinks  that  an 
irrevocable  sentence  of  condemnation  has  been  pro- 


I  On  this  phase  of  the  argument  see  especially  Ezra  Abbott,  Crit- 
ical /'Assays,  1888;  and  J.  B.  Lightfoot  in  Expositor  for  1890. 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  7 1 

nounced  upon  them,  who  has  a  Greek  philosophical 
training,  and  whose  world  of  thought  is  much  more 
Hellienistic  than  Jewish.^ 

It  may  be  observed  in  the  first  place  that  it  is  not 
safe  to  say  that  John  might  not  have  become  the  author 
of  the  fourth  Gospel  because  he  was  at  first  a  Galilean 
fisherviau.  The  town  of  Nazareth  was  also  in  Galilee, 
and  one  might  as  well  expect  great  things  from  a 
fisherman  as  from  a  carpenter.  Then  we  plainly  have 
no  right  to  say  that  John  was  a  narrow  legal  Christian 
in  52  A.  D.  It  is  true  that  he  was  an  apostle  unto 
the  Jews,  with  James  and  Peter,  but  he  had  taken  part 
in  receiving  the  Samaritans,  who  were  esteemed  as 
Gentiles,  and  Peter  with  whom  he  was  associated  had 
preceded  Paul  in  welcoming  the  Gentiles  to  the  faith. 
He  with  James  and  Peter  gave  the  right  hand  of  fel- 
lowship to  Paul,  thus  endorsing  his  work  among  the 
Gentiles.  From  the  fact  that  he  regarded  himself  as 
providentially  set  apart  to  the  work  among  the  Jews, 
we  cannot  infer  that  his  Christianity  was  narrow. 
Therefore  we  cannot  say  positively  that  an  extraor- 
dinary change  must  have  taken  place  in  John  between 
52  A.  D.  and  about  90  A.  D.,  if  he  was  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.  We  simply  do  not  know  how 
catholic  he  was  in  52  A.  D. 

I    See   Schiirer    in    Contemporary   Revicxv,   1891;   Holtzmann's 
EinleitiDig,  pp.  468-470;  and  Jiilicher's  Einlcitung,  p.  255. 


INTRODUCTION. 


As  regards  the  author's  way  of  speaking  of  the 
Jews,  it  is  explained  by  the  judgment  of  God  upon 
the  Jewish  people  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
according  to  the  prophecy  of  Jesus.  The  kingdom  of 
heaven  had  been  taken  from  them  and  had  been  given 
to  the  Gentiles  (Mark  xii.  9).  There  is  nothing,  how- 
ever, in  the  fourth  Gospel  to  indicate  that  the  author 
regarded  their  future  as  wholly  without  hope. 

Finally,  "the  philosophical  training"  manifested 
by  the  author  is  rather  imaginary  than  real.  Neither 
Hellenistic  thought  nor  philosophical  training  is  requi- 
site to  an  adequate  explanation  even  of  the  Prologue 
of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  conception  of  the  Logos 
has  far  better  roots  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  than  it  has  in  Philo.  It  is  quite 
true  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel  there  is  "a  primary 
and  fundamental  contrast  "  between  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  the  kingdom  of  the  world,  between  God  and 
the  devil,  between  light  and  darkness,  and  truth  and 
falsehood.  But  that  fundamental  contrast  is  as  old 
as  the  oldest  Scripture,  and  did  not  need  to  be  bor- 
rowed from  Gnostic  philosophers.  And  by  whom 
was  it  the  more  probable  that  this  contrast  would  be 
deeply  felt  and  positively  expressed,  by  one  who  had 
long  companied  with  Jesus  Christ  and  had  caught  His 
spirit,  or   by  Gnostic   philosophers  before   whose  eyes 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  73 

Jesus  the  revealer  of   God  was  a  hazy  and  half  divine 
bein^? 

No.  This  Gospel  which,  as  Lightfoot  says,  is  thor- 
oughly saturated  with  the  Messianic  ideas  of  the  time 
of  Jesus,  this  Gospel  whose  portrait  of  Christ  is  in 
fundamental  accord  with  that  of  the  Synoptists, 
whose  narrative  though  plainly  independent  of  the 
Synoptists  is  as  plainly  self-consistent  and  self-legiti- 
mating, this  Gospel  is  not  appreciatively  judged  when 
it  is  regarded  as  "a  philosophical  fiction,  with  relig- 
ious tendency,  dating  from  the  third  Christian  genera- 
tion (Jiilicher),"  or  regarded  as  an  idealization  of  the 
earthly  life  of  Jesus,  blended  with  the  development  of 
the  Christian  Church  through  the  first  century  of  its 
history  (Holtzmann).^ 

And  who,  we  may  ask  with  Beyschlag,  in  conclu- 
sion, who  is  the  wondrous  stranger  of  the  second 
century,  who  untouched  by  any  of  its  weaknesses, 
towered  a  full  head  above  all  the  ecclesiastical  digni- 
taries of  his  time,  and  nevertheless,  personally  con- 
sidered, remained  absolutely  unknown.^ 

Had  there  lived  in  the  second  century  a  man 
capable  of  producing  the  fourth  Gospel,  we  should 
doubtless    find    abundant     personal     traces    of    him. 

I  Comp.  Gustav  Kriiger,  Geschichte  der  aUchristltchen  Literatur, 
1895,  p.  31. 


74  INTRODUCTION. 

But  we  know  the  great  men  of  that  century,  ancT 
know  that  there  was  not  amon^  them  one  who  dis- 
tantly approached  the  mental  stature  of  the  author 
of  the  fourth  Gospel. 

3.     The  Gospel  Outside  the  Gospels. 

If  our  New  Testament  began  with  the  Book  of 
Acts,  we  could  still  form  a  tolerably  complete  outline 
of  the  life  of  Jesus.  It  is  true  that  the  great  evidence 
of  the  New  Testament  writings  from  Acts  onward  is 
evidence  which  firmly  establishes  the  fact  that  beneath 
them  and  behind  them  a  new  and  divine  force  had 
come  into  the  world  through  a  certain  Jesus;  and 
yet  they  contain  a  good  many  specific  references  to 
points  in  the  life  of  Christ,  some  of  them  incidental 
in  character,  others  introduced  as  being  of  funda- 
mental significance.  A  large  part  of  these  references 
are  earlier  than  the  earliest  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
It  is  therefore  the  more  important  that  we  notice  the 
outline  of  this  earliest  Gospel. 

It  includes  the  following  points:  Jesus  was  born 
of  the  seed  of  David  (Rom.  i.  3),  His  mother's  name 
was  Mary  (Acts  i.  14),  and  He  was  in  body  and  spirit 
a  true  man  (Rom.  i.  3-4;  Phil.  ii.  7;  I  Tim  ii.  5-6; 
iii.  16;  Heb.  iv.  15,  etc.).  He  was  heralded  by  John 
the  Baptist,  who  declared   himself  unworthy  to  loose 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  75- 

the  shoes  of  the  coming  One  (Acts  xiii.  25),  and  who 
prepared  His  way  by  the  baptism  of  repentance  (Acts 
xiii.  24).  The  ministry  of  Jesus  began  in  the  days  of 
the  Baptist  (Acts  i.  22),  and  was  spent  in  the  country 
of  the  Jews  and  in  Jerusalem  (Actsx.  39),  an  important 
part  of  it  being  spent  in  Gahlee  (Acts  xiii.  31).  This 
ministry  was  primarily  for  the  Jews  (Rom.  xv.  8). 
Jesus  was  anointed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  (Acts  x.  38) 
at  the  time  of  His  baptism  (I.  John  v.  6).  He  gathered 
around  Him  a  company  of  disciples  which  at  His 
death  numbered  more  than  five  hundred  (I  Cor.  xv.  6), 
and  appointed  twelve  to  be  apostles  (I  Cor.  xv.  5), 
whose  names  are  given  (Acts  i.  13,  16).  His  life  was 
marked  by  mighty  works  and  wonders  and  signs 
which  God  wrought  by  Him  (Acts  ii.  22).  He  went 
about  doing  good,  healing  all  who  were  oppressed  of 
the  devil  (Acts  x.  38),  and  the  manifest  aim  of  His  life 
was  to  destroy  the  devil's  works  (I.  John  iii.  8).  He 
was  a  poor  man  (H  Cor.  viii.  9),  meek  and  gentle  in 
manner  (H  Cor.  x.   i). 

He  was  a  Jioly  man  (I  Cor.  xv.  3;  I  Pet.  ii.  22-23), 
a  living  condemnation  of  all  sin,  and  so  unlike  the 
law's  condemnation  which  consisted  in  a  dead  letter 
(Rom.  viii.  3).  And  yet  He  was  tempted  as  other 
men  (Heb.  iv.  15),  and  was  made  perfect  through 
sufferings  (Heb.  ii.   10).      He  was  the  manifestation  of 


j6  INTRODUCTION. 

the  love  of  God  (I  John  iv.  9;  Eph.  iii.  19;  v.  2),  and 
as  such  He  pleased  not  Himself  (Rom.  xv.  3),  but 
was  the  servant  of  others,  teaching  that  it  is  more 
blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  (Acts  xx.  35),  and  at 
last  He  gave  Himself  a  ransom  for  all  (I  Tim.  ii.  56). 
He  was  a  faithful  witness  (Rev.  i.  5),  the  sum  of 
whose  message  was  that  God  is  light  (I  John  i.  5), 
and  His  teaching  was  such  that  it  became  law  to  His 
followers  (Gal.  vi.  2;  Col.  iii.  16).  The  sum  of  His 
ethics  for  His  disciples  was  that  they  should  love  each 
other  (I  John  iv.  21.) 

Sometime  in  His  earthly  life,  on  a  certain  moun- 
tain. His  disciples  had  been  granted  a  singular  mani- 
festation of  His  glory,  and  had  received  divine 
assurance  that  He  was  the  Christ  (H  Peter  i.  16-18). 
At  last  he  was  betrayed  to  the  rulers  by  Judas  an 
apostle  (Acts  xiii.  27;  i.  16).  The  Jews  condemned 
Him  to  death  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  iv.  27;  xiii. -27).  He 
was  afterward  brought  before  Herod  and  Pontius 
Pilate  (Acts  iv.  27),  and  Pilate  was  determined  to 
release  Him  (Acts  iii.  13),  but  failed,  as  the  Jews 
asked  that  a  murderer  be  granted  to  them  instead  of 
Jesus  (Acts  iii.  [4).  No  cause  of  death  was  found  in 
Him  (Acts  xiii.  28),  but  yet  He  was  crucified  outside 
the  city,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  participating  in  His 
death   (Heb.    xiii.    12;  Acts  iv.  27;  ii.  23). 


THE    SYNOPTIC    GOSPELS.  JJ 

In  the  night  of  His  betrayal,  He  instituted  a 
supper  for  His  disciples,  giving  them  bread  as  a 
symbol  of  His  body  and  wine  as  a  symbol  of  His 
blood,  and  He  asked  them  to  keep  this  supper  in 
memory  of  Him  (I.  Cor.  xi.  23-26).  When  death  was 
approaching,  He  prayed  in  an  agony  that  He  might  be 
delivered  from  it,  but  though  He  was  heard.  His 
specific  request  was  not  granted,  and  He  was  perfected, 
as  a  Redeemer,  through  suffering  (Heb.  v.  7-9). 
Through  these  words  we  can  see  the  entire  scene  in 
Gethsemane  as  described  by  the  evangelists. 

When  Jesus  had  expired  on  the  cross.  His  body 
was  taken  down  and  laid  in  a  tomb  (Acts.  xiii.  29; 
I  Cor.  XV.  4).  On  the  third  day  He  rose  or  was  raised 
by  God  (I  Thess.  iv.  14;  I  Cor.  xv.  4;  H  Cor.  iv.  14, 
etc.),  and  through  many  days  (Acts  xiii.  31)  or  forty 
days  (Acts  i.  3),  He  was  manifested  to  chosen  wit- 
nesses, who  were  largely  Galileans  (Acts  x.  41;  xiii. 
31).  Of  these  appearances  at  least  live  are  partic- 
ularized, one  to  Peter,  one  to  James,  two  to  all  the 
apostles,  and  one  to  more  than  five  hundred  brethren 
at  once  (I  Cor.  xv.  5-7).  When  this  statement  was 
written,  both  Peter  and  James  were  ahve,  and  as  far 
as  we  know,  all  the  other  apostles,  with  the  exception 
of  James  the  brother  of  John;  and  of  the  five  hundred, 
the  majority  were  still  living.      This  risen  one  showed 


J'^  INTRODUCTION. 

Himself  alive  by  many  proofs  (Acts  i.  3).  He  spoke 
with  His  disciples,  and  they  ate  and  drank  with  Him 
(Acts  X.  41;  i.  3).  He  told  them  that  they  should 
soon  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they 
should  be  His  witnesses  unto  the  end  of  the  earth,  and 
then  He  was  taken  up  (Acts  i.  9),  or  was  received  up 
(Acts  i.  22),  or  He  ascended  (Eph.  iv,   10). 

In  this  mass  of  specific  information,  much  of  it 
earlier  than  any  one  of  our  canonical  Gospels,  there  is 
nothing  which  is  at  variance  with  the  detailed  accounts 
of  the  evangelists.  There  are  some  notable  omissions, 
for  example,  the  omission  of  any  reference  to  the 
supernatural  conception  of  Jesus;  and  there  are  some 
notable  additions,  as  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord 
to  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once;  but  still 
the  outline  contained  in  these  references  which  are 
drawn  from  various  writers,  some  of  whom  were  eye- 
witnesses and  some  not,  is  in  remarkable  agreement 
with  the  outline  of  the  Gospels,  and  offers  strong  sub- 
stantiation of  their  account  of  the  essential  facts  in 
the  life  of  Jesus  Christ. 


The  Student's  Life  of  Jesus. 


CHAPTER   I. 

The    Supernatural  Conception. 

{(i)  The  Data.  The  story  of  the  supernatural 
conception  ^of  Jesus  is  found  only  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  (Matt.  i.  18-25;  Luke  i.  26-38;  ii.  1-20).  The 
other  evangelists  make  no  allusion  to  it,  nor  is  it 
referred  to  in  the  remaining  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  story  in  Matthew  is  somewhat  different 
from  that  in. Luke.  Both  agree  that  Jesus  was  con- 
ceived by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  beyond  this  the  narra- 
tive of  each  evangelist  is  peculiar  to  himself.  Matthew 
relates  how  Joseph  was  induced  by  a  dream  to  take 
Mary  after  he  knew  her  condition.  Luke  says  nothing 
of  Joseph,  but- tells  of  the  annunciation  to  Mary.  In 
Matthew  the  supernatural  conception  is  made  known 
to  Joseph  in  a  dream;  in  Luke  it  is  announced  to 
Mary,  and,  as  far  as  the  story  goes,  while  she  is 
awake. 


80  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

Beyschlag^  holds  that  these  data  conflict  with  each 
other.  It  is  said  that  Joseph,  according  to  Matthew, 
knows  nothing  of  the  announcements,  which  are  made 
to  Mary,  according  to  Luke.  But  it  is  improbable, 
the  author  says  further,  that  this  was  really  the  fact, 
for  every  motive  of  shrewdness,  of  honor,  and  of 
duty,  would  have  constrained  Mary  to  communicate 
these  announcements  to  her  betrothed  at  once.  This 
may  be  granted,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  Joseph 
might  not  still  need  the  assurance,  which,  according 
to  Matthew,  was  given  him  in  a  dream.  The  test  of 
his  confidence  in  Mary  was  such  that  it  is  not  deroga- 
tory to  his  character  to  believe  that  he  needed  a  divine 
assurance  of  her  faithfulness,  even  if  she  had  already 
communicated  to  him  the  angelic  announcement, 
which  it  is  certainly  natural  to  suppose  that  she  did. 

(/;)  The  Difficulties.  Some  objections  are  raised 
to  the  supernatural  conception  even  by  those  who 
accept  the  Gospels  as  in  the  main  historical.  Thus  it 
is  said,  first, ^  that  an  earlier  and  correct  view  of  the 
matter  appears  in  Luke  (ii.  27,  ^i,  41,  43,  48),  where 
the  parents  of  Jesus  are  mentioned,  where  a  father  is 
referred  to  even  as  a -mother,  and  where  Mary  herself 

1  Das  Leben  Jesu,  by  Willibald  Beyschlag,  2  vols.,  1885-1886, 
i.  149. 

2  Keira,  7'he  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara,  six  vols.,  1876-1883, 
English  translation,  ii.  39-68.      Beyschlag,  Lebcyi  fesu,  i.  164. 


THE    SUPERNATURAL    CONCEPTION.  8 1 

is  represented  as  saying,  '' Thy  /at/ier  Rnd  1  sought 
thee  sorrowing."  But  it  is  not  probable  that  Luke 
regarded  this  language  as  conflicting  with  the  super- 
natural conception,  for  he  was  writing  to  confirm  the 
faith  of  Theophilus  (i.  4),  and  it  is  not  likely  that  he 
would  begin  his  story  with  palpable  contradictions. 
The  language  of  Luke  in  the  above  passages  is  natural 
when  we  consider,  first,  that  Joseph  was  at  any  rate 
the  /i^o-a/  father  of  Jesus;  and  when  we  consider, 
second,  that  such  a  fact  as  the  supernatural  con- 
ception would  be  instinctively  kept  from  public 
knowledge.  To  have  made  it  known  during  the  life 
of  Jesus  would  have  been  to  invite  calumny. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  held  that  the  genealogies 
of  Jesus  in  Matthewrand  Luke  (Matt.  i.  1-17;  Luke 
iii.  23-38),  presuppose  paternal  parentage.  It  must, 
indeed,  be  admitted  that  both  lists  give  the  genealogy 
of  Joseph.  The  view  that  Luke  gives  the  genealogy 
of  Mary  lacks  support.  Weiss  ^  holds  this  view,  and 
says  in  its  defense  that  it  would  manifestly  be  without 
sense  to  give  the  genealogy  of  a  man  who  was  not  the 
real  father  of  Jesus,  but  only  His  supposed  father. 
But  it  must  be  said  in  reply  that  this  is  just  what 
Matthew  plainly  does.  He  gives  the  genealogy  of 
Joseph  (Matt.    i.   16),  and   then   says   that   Jesus   was 

I  Bernhard  Weiss,  Das  Lehen  Jisu,  2  vols.,  1S82,  vol.  i.  211. 
6 


82  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

conceived  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (Matt.  i.  i8).  Luke 
may  do  the  same  thing.  Then,  too,  if  he  wished  to 
give  the  genealogy  of  Mary,  why  did  he  not  say  so 
clearly  ?  Certainly  the  reader  naturally  thinks  that  he 
gives  the  genealogy  of  Joseph.  It  is  only  by  violence 
that  it  is  taken  from  Joseph  and  given  to  Mary. 

Luke's  genealogy,  therefore,  like  that  of  Matthew, 
must  be  regarded  as  the  genealogy  of  Joseph.  This 
fact  on  the  face  of  it  is  perhaps  unfavorable  to  the 
supernatural  conception  of  Jesus,  but  it  by  no  means 
precludes  that  conception.  Jesus  was  the  adopted  sow 
of  Joseph,  if  not  his  physical  son,  and  the  evangelists 
therefore  regarded  him  as  heir  to  Joseph's  genealogy. 
This  is  plain  from  Matt.  i.  i8,  where  at  the  close  of 
the  genealogy  of  Joseph  it  is  indicated  that  Jesus  was 
not  Joseph's  child.  It  is  also  plain  from  the  fact  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  give  these  genealogical  lists  side 
by  side  with  the  explicit  teaching  of  a  supernatural 
birth.  Therefore  we  must  admit  that  the  evangelists 
did  not  regard  the  genealogies  as  conflicting  with  the 
supernatural  conception  of  Jesus. 

But  our  confidence  that  Jesus  was  descended  from 
David  does  not  rest  upon  these  genealogies.  There  is 
evidence  of  another  and  better  sort.  Thus  according 
to  Luke  i.  32,  Mary  was  descended  from  David. 
Then,  too,  Jesus  was  hailed  as  the  Son  of  David  again 


THE    SUPERNATURAL    CONCEPTION.  83 

and  again,  and  accepted  the  title  (Matt.  ix.  27;  xii. 
23:  xxi.  g).  He  must,  then,  have  beheved  that  He 
belonged  to  David's  Hne.  Further,  the  fact  that  Paul 
and  John  regarded  Jesus  as  born  of  the  seed  of  David 
shows  that  this  was  the  accepted  belief  of  the  apos- 
tolic church^  (Rom.  i.  3;  Rev.  v.  5).  It  is  plain,  there- 
fore, that  we  have  good  ground  for  holding  the 
Davidic  descent  of  Jesus,  and  it  is  not  of  great  import- 
ance that  the  two  genealogies  of  Joseph  cannot  be 
harmonized. 

Third,  it  is  said^  that  the  unbelief  of  the  brothers 
of  Jesus  shows  that  the  story  of  His  supernatural  con- 
ception is  not  historical.  But  assuming  that  Mary 
made  known  to  her  other  children  the  facts  concern- 
mg  the  birth  of  Jesus,  which  we  scarcely  dare  to 
assume,  still  thirty  years  of  obscure  life  in  Nazareth, 
in  which  Jesus  made  no  claim  to  be  the  Messiah, 
would  have  been  sufficient  to  destroy  any  faith  which 
they  may  have  had  in  their  mothers  story. 

It  may  be  noted  in  this  connection  that  Mary's 
language  at  the  marriage  feast  in  Cana  is  what  might 
be  expected  if  the  narrative  of  the  supernatural  con- 
ception   be   true   (John  ii.    3).      She   speaks  there  as 

1  See  Eusebius,  Ecclesiastical  ffistorx,  iii.  19-20  He  relates 
that  grandchildren  of  Jude,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  were  brought  before 
Domitian  as  suspicious  persons  because  they  claimed  to  be  descended 
rrom  David. 

2  E.  g  ,  Beyschlag,  Lebeu  Jesu,  i    151. 


84  THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

though  anticipating  supernatural  assistance  from  Jesus, 
The  account  of  His  baptism  and  the  fact  that  He  had 
come  to  Cana  accompanied  by  men  who  regarded  Him 
as  the  Messiah  might  alone  have  awakened  such  an 
anticipation,  but  it  is  more  easily  understood  if  the 
story  of.  His  wondrous  birth  is  accepted. 

(0  Unscriptural  Claims.  It  has  sometimes  been 
held  that  the  sinlessjifss  of  Jesus  required  the  super- 
natural conception\  It  must  be  said  in  reply  to  this 
view  that  the  New  Testament,  though  unanimously 
teaching  Christ's  sinlessness,  never  suggests  that  this 
was  due  to  His  supernatural  conception.  It  repre- 
sents His  sinless  character  as  the  victorious  develop- 
ment of  a  true  man,  and  not  as  a  heritage. 

It  is  also  to  be  said  that,  so  far  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment teaches,  the  divinity  of  Christ  did  not  require 
the  supernatural  conception.  John  and  Paul,  the 
writers  who  most  emphasize  the  divine  nature  of 
Jesus,  do  not  suggest  that  it  was  conditioned  upon  a 
supernatural  conception.  Whatever  significance  the 
supernatural  conception  had  for  them,  it  plainly  was 
not  this.  They  neither  inferred  the  divinity  of  Jesus 
from  His  supernatural  conception,  nor  held  the  super- 
natural conception  to  be  a  necessary  accompaniment 
of  His  divinity.    Hence  if  the  supernatural  conception 

I  For  advocates  of  this  view,  seeDorner,  Christologic,  i.  320,  etc. 


THE    SUPERNATURAL    CONCEPTION".  85 

is  accepted,  it  must  be  on  the  testimony  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  as  far  as  the  New  Testament  basis  is  con- 
cerned, and  it  is  this  only  that  we  have  here  in  view. 
When,  therefore,  a  writer  speaks  of  the  supernatural 
birth  of  Jesus  as  one  of  the  three  essentia/  miracles  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  ranks  it  with  the  miracle  of 
Christ's  person  and  the  miracle  of  His  resurrection, 
he  does  not  fairly  present  the  teaching-  of  the  New 
Testament. 

It  is  said  that  allusions  to  the  real  and  ideal  ele- 
ments in  the  birth  of  Christ  are  common  to  the  New 
Testament  books  besides  the  first  and  third  Gospels.' 
"The  fourth  evangelist  conceives  the  coming  of  Christ 
as  the  becoming  incarnate  of  the  Divine  and  Eternal 
Word,  while  Paul  in  many  a  form  expresses  and 
emphasizes  his  belief  in  a  Christ,  who  '  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  did  not  think  equality  with  God  a  thing 
to  be  snatched  at,  but  emptied  Himself  by  taking  the 
form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of 
men.'"  But  these  passages  do  not  imply  a  super- 
natural conception.  Before  they  can  be  thus  used  it  is 
necessary  to  prove  that  John  and  Paul  did  not  think 
oi  an  incarnation  as  possible  except  by  way  of  a  virgin- 
birth.  It  is  plain  that  they  believed  in  the  Divine  origin 
of  Christ,    but  that   is  quite   different   from   believing 

I   See  Fairbairn,  S/i/di'es  in  the  Life  of  Christ ,  pp.  37  and  331. 


86         THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

in  His  miraculous  conception;  and  even  if  it  could  be 
made  to  seem  probable  that  they  believed  in  a  super- 
natural conception,  it  would  still"  be  a  wide  misrepre- 
sentation  of  New  Testament  teaching  to  say  that  it 
esteems  the  supernatural  conception  of  Christ  as 
being  no  less  necessary  than  the  miracle  of  His  resur- 
rection. The  apostles  believed  that  Christianity 
rested  upon  the  resurrection  as  its  very  foundation, 
but  apart  from  the  first  and  third  Gospels,  there  is 
not  even  an  allusion  to  the  supernatural  conception. 
(//)  The  Narrative  Historical.  Weiss^  has  shown 
that  the  narrative  of  the  supernatural  conception  can- 
not be  explained  as  a  myth.  The  reason  is  that  the 
doctrinal  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  did  not  rcqtiirc  the  supernatural  con- 
ception, and  hence  there  was  no  occasion  for  the 
formation  of  such  a  legend.  The  narrative  in  ^^lat- 
thew  and  Luke  is  admitted  to  be  of  Jewish-Christian 
origin,  and  there  is  evidence  that  the  Messiah's  birth 
from  a  virgin  was  foreign  to  the  thought  of  the 
Jews.^  They  believed  that  the  Messiah  would  have  a 
purely  human  origin,  that  His  father  would  belong  to 
the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  His  mother  to  the  tribe  of 
Dan.      The   passage   in    Isaiah   vii.    14,  even   if  it   be 

1  Das  Leben  Jesii,   i.  219.     Comp.   Neander,   Das  Lcben  Jcsu 
Christi,  1837,  p.  10. 

2  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  dcs  'Jabnuds,  1886,  pp.  339-342. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CONCEPTION.         87 

regarded  as  a  prediction  of  the  supernatural  birth  of 
the  Messiah,  was  not  so  understood  among  the  Jews 
of  the  first  century,  and  apart  from  Matthew  i.  22-23 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Christians  of  the  first 
century  regarded  it  in  this  way.  Since,  then,  neither 
the  Jewish  nor  the  Jewish-Christian  doctrines  required 
the  supernatural  conception  of  the  Messiah,  the  ground 
is  cut  away  from  beneath  those  who  deny  its  historical 
character,  and  seek  to  explain  it  as  a  myth. 

Two  items  may  be  mentioned  here  which  witness 
for  the  historical  credibility  of  the  story.  First,  Luke 
ii.  19,  51,  points  to  recollections  of  Mary  as  the  ulti- 
mate source  of  Luke's  narrative  regarding  the  concep- 
tion and  birth  of  Jesus;  and  second,  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  trace  of  opposition  to  the  story  in  the 
apostolic  Church.  James  and  Jude,  the  brothers  of 
Jesus,  who  lived  through  the  period  in  which  the  Syn- 
optic material  took  form,  were  qualified  to  pass  judg- 
ment on  the  story  of  the  supernatural  conception. 
Their  silence  must  be  allowed  some  weight.  So  too 
the  silence  of  John  is  significant.  It  was  in  his  house 
that  the  mother  of  Jesus  lived  after  the  crucifixion, 
and  so  he  had  the  best  of  opportunities  for  knowing 
the  facts.  If  the  stories  of  Matthew  and  Luke  had 
been  regarded  by  him  as  unhistorical,  it  seems  proba- 
ble that  he  would  have  opposed  their  acceptance  by 


88  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

the  churches,  and  that  we  should  find  some  trace   of 
that  opposition  either  in  his  Gospel  or  elsewhere. 

(0  Meaning  of  the  Supernatural  Conception.  This 
is  a  point  on  which  the  Gospels  throw  no  clear  light, 
and  on  which,  therefore,  one  must  speak  with  cau- 
tion. The  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus  indicates, 
according  to  Beyschlag,  who,  however,  holds  that  the 
story  is  a  poetic  legend, — it  indicates  that  Jesus  was 
one  whom  humanity  could  not  beget,  but  only  receive. 
Of  course  the  supernatural  conception  does  not  allow 
us  to  think  of  Jesus  as  the  product  of  evolution,  at 
least  as  regards  His  holy  personality,  though  physic- 
ally and   intellectually  He  might  be  so  regarded   still. 

It  sets  Jesus  in  parallelism  with  the  first  man. 
As  God  was  directly  concerned  with  the  first  Adam, 
breathing  into  his  body  the  breath  of  life,  so  that  man 
became  a  living  soul,  in  like  manner  He  was  concerned 
with  the  origin  of  the  second  Adam,  making  Him  in  a 
unique  sense  the  child  of  the  Spirit.  Thus  the  super- 
natural conception  would  afford  an  explanation  of  the 
fact  that  Jesus  from  childhood  up  never  yielded  to 
temptation.  We  cannot  say  that  this  is  the  necessary 
and  only  conceivable  explanation  of  that  fact.  Hase 
holds  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  but  does  not  accept  the 
supernatural  conception.  ^     He    thinks  that    Jesus    in 

I  Das  Lcben  Jesn,  Dritte  Auflage,  p.   58. 


THE    SUPERNATURAL    CONCEPTION.  89 

His  very  origin  was  separated  from  sinful  human  life 
by  a  creative  act  of  God. 

This  is  conceivable,  and  is,  perhaps,  not  the  only 
rational  assumption  which  might  be  made.  But  what 
can  be  claimed  is  that  the  supernatural  conception  fur- 
nishes an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  always 
able  to  maintain  Himself  in  purity.  And  it  does  so,  not 
because  it  makes  Him  less  human  than  other  men,  for 
it  does  not,  but  because  it  represents  Him  as  being  in 
a  unique  sense  the  child  of  the  Spirit  (Luke  i.  35). 
This  original  dower  of  the  Spirit,  while  it  did  not  do 
away  with  the  reality  of  temptations,  may  be  thought 
of  as  giving  to  Jesus  a  peculiarly  clear  moral  insight, 
an  unusual  love  of  the  good,  and  a  consciousness  of 
God's  presence  in  which  He  was  able  to  get  the 
victory  over  every  temptation. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus. 

(a)  The  Place.  The  narratives  in  Matthew  and 
Luke,  though  seeming  to  differ  in  regard  to  the  //<;w^' 
of  Mary  and  Joseph,  agree  that  Jesus  was  born  in 
Bethlehem  (Luke  ii.  4;  Matt.  ii.  i ).  The  difference 
in  the  narratives  is  this.  According  to  Luke,  Naza- 
reth was  the  home  of  Mary.  She  went  to  Bethle- 
hem with  Joseph  in  consequence  of  an  enrolment, 
and  soon  after  the  presentation  of  Jesus  in  the  temple 
the  parents  returned  to  Nazareth,  their  own  city. 
According  to  Matthew,  the  parents  fled  from  Bethle- 
hem, where  Jesus  had  been  born,  to  Egypt,  and  on 
their  return  from  Egypt  they  would  have  gone  into 
Judea,  presumably  to  Bethlehem,  but  being  divinely 
warned  against  this  they  withdrew  into  Galilee,  and 
came  and  dwelt  in  Nazareth.  We  must  agree  with 
Weiss^  that  if  we  had  Matthew  only,  we  should  think 
that  Bethlehem  was  the  "original  home  of  Mary,  and 
that  when  the  parents  went  to  Nazareth,  they  went 
to  a  strange  city,  where  they  had  not  lived  before. 

I   Das  Leben  Jesn,  i.  239. 

90) 


THE  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS.        9 1 

Yet   too  much   weight   is  sometimes  given  to  this 
apparent  difference.      The   desire  of    the  parents  on 
their  return  from   Egypt  to  go  to  Bethlehem  was  in 
keeping  with  what   they  knew  of  the  destiny  of  their 
child.      The  common  expectation  was  that  ,the  Mes- 
siah would  come  from  Bethlehem   (Matt.  ii.  6;  John 
vii.    42),  and   the  parents   may  naturally  have  desired 
that   their  child   should   grow  up    in  this  old  city  of 
David  (Micah  v.  2).      Hence   their  plan  to  return  to 
Bethlehem  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  this   was 
their  original  home.      As  to  the  other  point   in   Matt, 
ii.  23,    we  may  hold  this  view.      Matthew  says  they 
came  to    "a  city  called  Nazareth,"   as  though   he  did 
not    know  that  this  had  previously  been  their  home. 
But  this  language  may  owe  its  strangeness  to  the  fact 
that  Matthew  was  intent  on  the  significance   oi  iht^ 
word  JVa^aret/i.'     He  saw   a  fulfillment,  of  prophecy 
in  the  fact  that  Jesus    was   a   Nazareiie   (Is.    xi.    i). 
Since  this  is  the  one  thing  which  he  wished  to  record, 
he  made  no  allusion  to  the  previous  residence  of  Mary 
in  Nazareth. 

According  to  Luke  (ii.  1-3),  the  .fact  which  led  to 
the  birth  of  Jesus  in  Bethlehem  was  an  enrolment 
that   had   been  ordered  by  Augustus,    of   which   it  is 

I  See  Erich  Haupt,  Die  alttestamentUchcn  Citate  in  den  I'ier 
Evangelien,  1871,  pp.  235-237. 


92  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

said:  "This  was  the  first  enrolment  made  when 
Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria."  According  to  Jose- 
phus,  Quirinius  became  governor  of  Syria  in  760  of 
Rome,  or  about  eleven  years  after  the  birth  of  Jesus. 
Zumpt'  has  shown,  however,  that  Quirinius  was  prob- 
ably twice  governor  of  Syria  (750-753,  760-765  of 
Rome),  and  that  the  enrolment  was  completed  by  him 
in  the  period  of  his  first  governorship.  It  was  begun 
by  Sentius  Saturninus.  Weiss^^  holds  that  Quirinius 
was  at  this  time  a  royal  commissioner  in  the  East, 
and  so  had  charge  of  the  enrolment,  but  thinks  Luke 
is  mistaken  in  calling  him  governor. 

It  seems  probable  that  this  first  enrolment  was  a 
census  proper,  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  popula- 
tion, while  the  one  mentioned  in  Acts  v.  37,  which 
led  to  the  great  uprising  under  Judas  of  Galilee,  was 
an  apprizal  of  propert}'.  This  enrolment  which  took 
Joseph  to  Bethlehem,  was  made  according  to  the 
Jewish  method,  as  appears  from  Luke's  story.  Every 
one  went  to  his  oivn  city,  not  to  the  city  of  his  dis- 
trict necessarily,  but  the  city  to  which  his  house  and 
family  belonged. 

The  law  did  not   require   the  presence   of    Mary  in 

1  Antiquities,  xviii.  i,  i;   2,  i. 

2  Zumpt,  Das  Geburtsjahr  Christi.  Comp.  Beyschlag,  Leben 
Jfsu,  i.'  141. 

3  Lehen  Jesu,  i.  241. 


THE  BIRTH  AND  INFANCY  OF  JESUS.        93 

Bethlehem  .  Joseph  took  her  for  other  reasons.  The 
chief  of  these  may  have  been,  as  Weiss'  suggests,  that 
the  child  whom  Joseph  expected  might  be  enrolled  as 
his  son.  Perhaps  the  acquaintance  of  the  parents 
with  Micah  v.  2  may  also  have  prompted  the  step. 

Regarding  the  exact  spot  where  Jesus  was  born, 
we  have  a  tradition  mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr, 
which  was  adopted  by  Origen,  to  the  effect  that  Jesus 
was  born  in  a  cave  near  the  village  of  Bethlehem.  If 
Jesus  was  born  in  a  cave,  it  was  at  least  one  which 
had  been  used  as  a  stable,  as  the  word  manger  indi- 
cates. 

The  extreme  lowliness  of  Christ's  birth  is  a  pledge 
of  the  historical  character  of  the  narrative.  The  Jew- 
ish Christians  would  not  have  invented  such  a  story, 
for  the  common  belief,  based  on  Old  Testament 
prophecy,  was  that  the  Christ  would  come  in  glory. 
No  one  thought,  before  He  came,  that  He  would 
come  in  poverty;  and  after  He  had  come  and  lived 
His  life,  no  Christian  would  have  ventured  to  repre- 
sent Him  as  having  been  born  in  a  stable  if  there  had 
not  been  a  reliable  tradition  which  affirmed  this. 

[b)     The   Date.      Dionysius    the    Little,    a    Roman 
abbot  who  died  in  556  A.  D.,  introduced  the  present 

1  See  Edersheim,  Life  and  Tivies  of  fesus  the  Messiah,  2d 
edition,  i.  183. 

2  Das  Leben  fesii,  i.  242. 


94         THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Christian  reckoning,  according  to  which  the  year  of 
Christ's  incarnation  and  birth  was  the  year  754  of 
Rome.  As  Dionysius  began  his  era  with  the  incar- 
nation, he  thought  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  belonging 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  year  i.  In  the  ninth  century 
it  became  customary  to  begin  the  year  i  with  the 
birth  of  Christ,  rather  than  with  the  conception  by  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

It  is  now  known  that  the  reckoning  of  Dionysius 
was  wrong,  and  that  Jesus  was  born  some  years 
earlier  than  he  thought,  but  how  many  years  earlier 
is  still  a  disputed  question.  The  data  that  fix  the 
approximate  year  are  the  following:  (i)  Jesus  was 
born  before  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great  (Matt.  ii.  i). 
Herod  died  shortly  before  the  Passover  of  the  year 
750  of  Rome.^  The  Gospels,  however,  do  not  indi- 
cate what  interval  elapsed  between  the  birth  of  Jesus 
and  the  death  of  Herod.  Weiss^  assumes  that  Jesus 
was  about  a  year  old  when  the  Magi  came,  and 
therefore  somewhat  more  than  a  year  old  when 
Herod  died;  Keim"'  thinks  He  was  about  four  years 
old  when  Herod  died,  and  about  two  years  old 
when  the  Magi  came.  (2)  According  to  Luke  iii. 
1-23,  Jesus  began  His  ministry  when   He   was  about 

1  Josephus,  Antiquities,   xvii.  8,  i ;  9,    3. 

2  Leben  Jesn,   i.  262. 

3  Jes7is  of  Nazara,  ii.  no. 


THE    BIRTH    AND    INFANCY    OF    JESUS.  95 

thirty  years  old,  and  this  was  in  the   fifteenth  year  of 
the  reign   of    Tiberius.      Both  these    statements    are 
somewhat  indefinite.      If  we  reckon  the  fifteenth  year 
of  Tiberius  from  the  time  when  he  became  co-regent 
with   Augustus/   764   of  Rome,  then  Jesus  began  His 
ministry  in   779   of   Rome.      If    He    was  then   thirty 
years   old,  He  must  have   been  born  in  749  of  Rome. 
But  Luke  simply  says  He  was  about  thirty  years  old, 
and  this  language   allows  us   to   think   that   He    was 
some  months,  perhaps  a  whole  year  less  or  more  than 
thirty. 

Again,  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  may  be  reck^ 
oned  from  the  death  of  Augustus,  j^-j  of  Rome,  when 
Tiberius  became  sole  emperor.  According  to  this, 
Christ's  ministry  began  not  earlier  than  782  of  Rome. 
Now  since  Jesus  was  born  before  the^Passover  of  750, 
He  must  have  been  at -least-thirty-two  years  old  when 
He  began  His  ministry.  This,  however,  would 
scarcely  accord  with  Luke's  .statement  that  He  was 
about  thirty  years  old.  Hence  it  seems  probable  that 
Luke  reckoned  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  from  the 
tmie  when  he  became  co-regent  with  Augustus,  764  of 
Rome.  This  would  put  the  beginning  of  Christ's  min- 
istry  in  the  year  779   of   Rome,    and   His   birth  in  the 

I  So  Zumpt,  Das  Geburts/ahr  Christ/:  Beyschlag,  Das  I eben 
Jesu,  i.   137. 


96  THE       student's    life    of    JESUS. 

year  749,  speaking  approximately.  (3)  A  third 
datum  which  has  a  bearing  on  the  question  is  John  ii. 
20.  The  Jews  said  that  the  temple  had  been  forty 
and  six  years  in  building.  Now  Josephus  tells  us  that 
Herod  began  the  temple  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his 
reign,  probably  733-734  of  Rome  .  This  would  give 
the  year  779-780  of  Rome  as  the  year  of  the  first 
Passover  of  Christ's  ministry.  If  He  was  then  about 
thirty  years  old,  He  must  have  been  born  about  749 
of  Rome,  and  hence  this  datum  supports  the  last.  (4) 
The  fact  that  there  was  a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and 
Saturn  in  747  of  Rome  (May  29,  recurring  Oct.  i  and 
Dec.  5),  and  of  three  planets,  Jupiter,  Saturn  and 
Mars,  in  748  of  Rome,  has  no  independent  value  for 
the  determination  of  the  exact  year  of  Jesus'  birth. 
For,  first,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  a  conjunction 
of  planets  would  have  been  called  a  star  {aster),  the 
term  used  in  Matthew  ii;  and  second,  the  text  does 
not  indicate  that  the  appearance  of  the  star  was 
believed  to  coincide  with  the  birth  of  the  Messiah. 
For  Herod  slew  all  the  children  in  Bethlehem  who 
were  two  years  old  or  less  than  that  (Matt.  ii.  16). 
This  shows  that  Herod  did  not  believe  the  child  to  be 
more  than  two  years  old,  his  confidence  resting  upon 
the  statement  of  the  Magi;   and  it  also  shows  that   he 

I  Antiquities,  xv.    11.  i. 


THE    BIRTH    AND    LNFANCY    OF    JESUS.  97 

thought  the  child  might  be  of  any  age  under  two 
years.  In  other  words,  he  thought  the  star  of  the 
Magi  might  \\?iwe  foretold  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  just  at 
hand,  rather  than  coincided  with  it. 

It  seems  on  the  whok  not  unhkely  that  the  con- 
junctions of  747  and  748  of  Rome  stood  in  some 
causal  connection  with  the  visit  of  the  Magi  to  Beth- 
lehem, but  they  do  not  therefore  determine  the  exact 
year  of  Christ's  birth.  If  it  is  made  probable  on  other 
grounds  that  Jesus  was  born  in  749  of  Rome,  then  the 
identification  of  the  star  of  the  Magi  with  the  con- 
junction of  planets  in  747  of  Rome  might  tend  to 
establish  the  correctness  of  that  date.  In  conclusion, 
it  seems  most  consistent  with  the  foregoing  data  to 
put  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  the  year  749  of  Rome, 
that  is,  5-6  years  B.  C.  As  regards  the  month  and 
day  of  Christ's  birth,  the  Gospels  leave  us  in  complete 
ignorance.  The  fact  that  Zacharias  was  of  the  course 
of  Abijah  (Luke  i.  5),  the  eighth  of  the  twenty-four 
courses  of  priests,  gives  us  no  help.  For  even  if  we 
admit  that  this  course  ministered  in  the  months  of 
April  and  October  in  the  year  749  of  Rome,  that  cir- 
cumstance is  of  no  value  since  it  is  not  known  what 
time  elapsed  between  the  sojourn  of  Zacharias  in 
Jerusalem  and  the  birth  of  the  Baptist.  But  if  the 
reference  to  Abijah's   course  does  not  rix  the  month  of 

7 


98  THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

John's  birth,  it  plainly  has  .no  significance  with  regard 
to  the  month  of  the  birth  of  Jesus.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (died  220  A.  D.)  says  that  some  people 
thought  that  Jesus  was  born  on  the  19th  or  20th  of 
April,  others  that  He  was  born  on  the  20th  of  May. 
He  himself  regarded  the  question  as  an  unprofitable 
one.  In  Egypt,  in  the  third  century,  some  Christians 
observed  the  6th  of  January  as  the  date  of  Christ's 
birth.  The  present  observance  of  December  25th  is 
not  mentioned  earlier  than  the  fourth  century.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  there  was  a  trustworthy  tradition 
in  support  of  this  date.  Neander^  thinks  the  obser- 
vance may  have  sprung  from  some  apocryphal  docu  - 
ment,  and  that  its  introduction  into  the  Church  may 
have  been  favored  by  the  proximity  of  certain  heathen 
festivals,  which  Christians  were  inclined  to  attend. 
He  thinks  that  the  Church,  in  order  to  keep  its  mem- 
bers away  from  these  heathen  feasts,  established  a 
festival  at  home  for  the  same  week,  and  perhaps 
for  the  same  day.  Most  critical  scholars  agree  that 
the  month  and  day  of  Christ's  birth  are  wholly 
xmknown  (r.  g.  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  Keim).  Eder- 
sheim  ^  thinks  there  is  no  adequate  reason  for  ques- 
tioning   the     historical    accuracy    of    the    traditional 

1  Kirchengeschichte,  iii.  438,  4th  ed. 

2  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  i.  187. 


THE    BIRTH    AND    INFANCY    OF    JESUS.  99 

date,  but   he  offers  nothing  in  its  support.      Andrews  * 
also  accepts  it. 

(c)  The  Shepherds.  The  story  that  the  birth  of 
Jesus  was  first  announced  to  the  shepherds  (Luke  ii. 
8-ioj  is  in  keeping  with  the  lowhness  of  that  birth.  . 
Yet  it  was  not  announced  to  them  because  they  were 
lowly.  These  men  are  represented  as  belonging  to 
the  little  circle  of  those  who  had  a  living  faith,  and 
who  were  longing  for  the  Messiah;  and  who  therefore 
were  qualified  to  receive  heavenly  communications. 
For  they  did  not  take  offence  at  the  mean  surround- 
ings of  Jesus,  but  glorified  God  that  they  had  seen 
Him,  and  straightway  became  heralds  of  the  glad 
tidings  to  others. 

The  exact  place  from  which  the  shepherds  came  is 
not  indicated.  Luke  only  says  that  they  were  "of 
the  same  country"  to  which  Bethlehem  belonged. 
The  language  of  Luke  ii.  15,  20,  where  the  shepherds 
speak  of  going   to   Bethlehem  and  then  of   returning 

o' 

/■.  r.,  to  their  homes,  suggests  that  they  were  not  men 
of  Bethlehem  itself,  but  lived  at  some  distance. 

The  message  of  the  angels  was  a  divine  response 
to  the  longing  of  certain  pious  souls.  Some  response 
was  sure  to  be  made  in  due  season,  for  God  does  not 
leave  human  longings   for   His  salvation  unanswered. 

I   The  Life  of  Our  Lord,    id  ed,    1891. 


lOO  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

This  particular  response  in  the  form  of  a  ^dorious 
vision  was  in  keeping  with  the  importance  of  the 
event  for  which  they  had  been  longing. 

The  essential  claim  of  the  story  is  that  the  birth 
of  Jesus  was  divinely  made  known  to  a  company  of 
men  who  were  fitted  to  receive  and  appreciate  the 
tidings.  It  is  a  matter  of  secondary  importance 
whether  the  communication  was  made  in  an  external 
way,  with  visible  accompaniments,  or,  as  is  more 
probable,  in  a  purely  spiritual  manner. 

The  shepherds  at  once  proved  the  truth  of  the 
heavenly  message  by  searching  until  they  found  the 
child  in  the  manger.  By  this  discovery  their  faith 
was  confirmed,  and  they  became  heralds  of  the  angelic 
word.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  their  visit  tended 
to  confirm  the  faith  of  the  parents  in  the  future  of 
their  child,  and  to  deepen  their  sense  of  responsibility 
for  His  care. 

{(i)  Circumcision  and  Presentation  in  the  Temple. 
Jesus  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  after  birth, 
according  to  the  law  (Lev.  xii.  3;  Luke  ii.  21).  By 
this  rite  He  became  a  child  of  the  covenant  which 
had  been  made  with  Abraham.  It  was  the  beginning 
of  His  subjection  to  the  law  which  was  necessary  if 
He  was  to  deliver  those  who  were  under  the  law 
(Galr  iv.  5).     At  this  time  He  received  the  name  Jesus, 


THE    BIRTH    A\D    IXFAXCV    OF    JESUS.  lOI 

which,  though  in  common  use,  was  given  to  Him  in 
view  of  His  mission  (Luke  i.  31;.  It  fitted  Him  in 
a  perfect  manner,  because  He  was,  as  the  name  signi- 
fies, tJic  help  or  deliverance  of  JeJiovaJi. 

Jesus  was  presented  to  the  Lord  in  the  temple  on 
the  41st  day  after  His  birth  (Lev.  xii.  1-4;  Luke  ii. 
22-24).  Before  this  time  the  mother  was  ceremonially 
unclean,  and  could  not  appear  in  the  temple.  The 
presentation  was  an  acknowledgment  that  the  first- 
born son  belonged  in  a  peculiar  wa}'  to  the  Lord, 
to  be  exclusively  His  for  service.  But  after  the 
tribe  of  Levi  was  chosen  for  the  service*  of  the 
Lord  (Num.  viii.),  the  first-born  sons  of  other  tribes 
were  redeemed  by  the  payment  of  five  sacred 
shekels  (this  shekel  variously  estimated  at  from  fifty 
to  eighty  cents).  Such  a  redemption  of  course  took 
place  in  the  case  of  Jesus.  It  has  been  pointed 
out  that  this  narrative  by  its  very  nature  commends 
itself  as  historical.  Legend  would  not  have  repre- 
sented Jesus  as  being  redeemed  from  the  service  of 
the  Lord,  who  yet  was  divinely  appointed  to  that 
service. 

The  other  ceremony  associated  with  this  visit  to 
the -temple  was  that  of  purification.  Mary  brought 
the  offering  of  the  poor,  either  two  doves  or  two 
pigeons.      One   of   these   was   for   a   sin-offering,    the 


I02  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

Other  for  a  burnt-offering.  One  was  in  view  of  the 
ceremonial  defilement  which  had  kept  her  from  the 
temple,  the  other  to  restore  fellowship  with  the  Lord 
(Lev.  xii.  8;.  Edersheim  estimates  the  cost  of  the 
two  doves  at  about  sixteen  cents. 

While   the   parents  were   in   the   temple,  an   event 
transpired  which  was  akin   to   the  visit   of   the  shep- 
herds.     As  these  had  been   informed  of  the   birth  of 
Jesus  and  had  come  to  see  Him,  so  Simeon,  described 
as  a  man  of   genuine  piety  like   Zacharias,  came  into 
the   temple   under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and   by 
the   Spirit  recognized  Jesus  as  the   Messiah  (Luke  ii. 
25-35).      He  took  Him  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  God 
for  the   sight.      There  is  no  indication  that  he  wor- 
shiped Jesus,  as  there  is  none  that  the  shepherds  had 
done  so.      From  the  words  of  praise  that  he  uttered, 
two  things  appear.      First,  he  had  been  assured  that 
he   should   not    die   until    he   had   seen   the   promised 
Messiah.      And  second,  his  conception  of  the  work  of 
the  Messiah  was  more  catholic  and  spiritual  than  that 
of  the  religious  leaders  of  the  day.      He  thought  that 
Gentiles  no  less  than  Jews  were  to  share  in  the   Mes- 
sianic  glory,    and   he   thought    of    the    Messiah   as    a 
sufferer,    one    spoken    against.       Opposition  to    Him 
would  be  carried  so  far  that  it  would  be  like   a  sword 
in  the  mother  s  heart.      The  child  was   not  to   be  the 


THE    BIRTH    AND    INFANCY    OF    JESUS.  IO3 

Messiah  of  the  popular  expectation,  but  one  over  whom 
many  would  stumble  (Is.  viii.   14-15). 

Simeon's  praise  was  continued  by  Anna,  an  aged 
widow,  who  like  Mary  was  of  Galilean  origin  (Luke  ii. 
36-38).  As  far  as  the  narrative  informs  us,  she  was 
led  by  Simeon's  words  to  accept  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
She  seems  immediately  to  have  begun  telling  of  Jesus  to 
those  who  were  waiting  for  redemption,  and  deserves 
to  be  classed  with  the  shepherds  as  one  of  the  first 
evangelists. 

(r)  The  Magi.  We  know  from  Matthew  (ii.  1-12) 
that  the  Magi  were  from  the  East  and  were  Gentiles, 
but  here  positive  knowledge  ends.  Whether  they 
came  from  Arabia  (so  the  Fathers,  Edersheim,  Keim, 
etc.),  or  from  Media  or  Persia  (Weiss),  is  wholly 
uncertain.  Astrologers  were  common  all  through  the 
Orient,  and  the  gifts  which  the  Magi  brought  to  Beth- 
lehem, though  produced  largely  in  Arabia,  could 
doubtless  be  obtained  in  any  of  the  great  markets 
of  the  East.  There  is  no  suggestion  as  to  the  num- 
ber or  rank  of  the  Magi.  The  Roman  Catholic  view 
that  they  were  kings,  three  in  number  (Caspar,  Mel- 
chior,  Balthasar),  has  of  course  no  basis  whatever. 
It  may  be  inferred  from  Matthew's  narrative  that  they 
were  astrologers,  and  also  that  they  had  some  idea  of 
the  spiritual  significance  which  was  wrapped  up  in  the 


I04  THE    student's     LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

promised  King  of  the  Jews.  It  is  not  probable  that 
the}^  came  to  pay  homage  to  one  who  they  thought 
was  to  become  a  great  pohtical  ruler  and  nothing 
more.  Their  knowledge  of  a  promised  King  of  the 
Jews,  and  of  His  significance  for  the  Gentiles,  had 
doubtless  been  received  from  the  writings  of  the  Jews, 
who  for  several  centuries  had  been  scattered  through 
the  East. 

The  Magi  read  the  birth  of  the  coming  King  in  the 
appearance  of  a  star.  What  this  star  was  cannot  be 
determined.  Since  Kepler  showed  that  there  was  a 
conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn  in  747  of  Rome, 
some  students  have  believed  that  this  conjunction  at 
least  aivakencd  \\\Q  attention  of  the  Magi;  others  that 
it  was  the  very  star  of  the  Magi;  and  still  others  that 
the  bright  star  which  appeared  in  1604  in  close  prox- 
imity to  these  planets  had  also  appeared  in  747  of 
Rome,  and  was  the  star  of  the  Magi.  But  the  appear- 
ance of  this  star  at  that  time  is  an  assumption,  and 
it  maybe  questioned  whether  a  conjunction  of  planets 
meets  the  requirements  of  the  narrative. 

The  account  in  Matthew  does  not  require  that  we 
should  think  of  a  supernatural  star.  The  statement 
that  the  star  ' '  went  before  them"  from  Jerusalem  to 
Bethlehem,  and  that  it  "stood"  over  the  place  where 
the  child  was,  is  consistent   with  the  view  that  it  was 


THE    BIRTH    AND    INFANXY    OF    JESUS.  IO5 

one  of  the  heavenly  bodies  moving  in  obedience  to  its 
divinely  appointed  laws.  The  thought  of  the  narra- 
tive is  that  as  they  journeyed  toward  Bethlehem, 
whither  they  had  been  directed  from  Jerusalem,  they 
again  saw  the  star  which  they  had  seen  in  the  East, 
and  which  afterward  they  had  apparently  not  seen  for 
a  time;  and  when  they  reached  Bethlehem  it  was 
directly  over  them.  This  re-appearance  of  the  star, 
as  they  looked  southward  toward  Bethlehem  naturally 
^ave  them  confidence  in  the  word  of  the  scribes. 
What  they  saw  was  probably  some  natural  phenome- 
non, and  their,  belief  that  it  heralded  the  birth  of  the 
King  of  the  Jews  was  a  superstition  by  which,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  they  were  led  to  the  truth. 

In  regard  to  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  star, 
nothing  definite  can  be  ascertained.  It  may  be 
inferred  from  Matt.  ii.  i6  that  it  had  appeared  about 
two  years  before  the  Magi  reached  Jerusalem.  How 
old  Jesus  was  when  the  Magi  came,  is  also  uncertain. 
We  do  not  know  that  the  star  appeared  just  when 
Jesus  was  born,  and  do  not  know  how  long  the  Magi 
had  been  on  their  journey. 

The  significance  of  the  story  of  the  Magi  lies  in 
the  fact  that,  while  Herod  and  most  of  the  Jews  did 
not  know  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  when  they  did 
know  it  refused  to  accept   Him,    there  were  Gentiles 


I06        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

from  afar  who  knew  of  His  birth  and  who  paid  Him 
reverence.  Thus  it  was  a  symbol  of  what  was  to 
take  place  on  a  large  scale  in  the  centuries  to  come. 
Israel  has  rejected  the  Messiah,  and  the  Gentiles  have 
received  Him. 

(/)  Herod  Baffled.  The  plan  by  which  Herod 
hoped  to  get  possession  of  the  new-born  King  of  the 
Jews  was  in  keeping  with  his  shrewdness;  and  his  act, 
when  this  plan  was  proven  futile,  was  in  keeping  with 
his  usual  cruelty  (Matt.  ii.  7-8;  16-18);  for,  according 
to  Josephus,  he  put  to  death  numbers  of  his  own 
family  circle,  among  them  three  of  his  sons  and  his 
beloved  Mariamne,  and  stained  himself  with  numerous 
murders  outside  his  own  family.  When  baffled  by 
the  Magi,  he  slew  the  male  children  in  Bethlehem  and 
in  all  its  borders  who  were  two  years  old  or  less. 
How  many  were  slain  is  quite  unknown.  The  compu- 
tation of  Farrar  (followed  by  Edersheim\j  that  there 
were  not  more  than  twenty  killed,  must  be  regarded 
as  a  rather  improbable  guess.  The  flight  of  the  parents 
into  Egypt  was  in  obedience  to  a  divine  intimation 
(Matt.  ii.  13.)  This  flight  involved  a  journey  of  at 
least  225  miles,  and  considering  the  circumstances  of 
Joseph,  and  the  haste  of  his  departure,  it  is  probable 
that  it  involved  a  good  deal  of  hardship  for  the  parents 

I  Life  and  Times  of  Jesjts  the  Messiah,   i.   214. 


THE    BIRTH    AND    INFANCY    OF    JESUS.  lO/ 

and  their  child.  There  were  many  Jews  in  Egypt  , 
and  among  them  Joseph  could  doubtless  find  shelter 
and  support.  How  long  he  remained  is  not  exactly 
known.  Herod  died  shortly  before  the  Passover  of  750 
of  Rome,  and  apparently  Joseph  returned  soon  after 
that  event.  If,  then,  Jesus  was  born  in  749  of  Rome, 
the  sojourn  in  Egypt  cannot  well  have  extended 
beyond  a  few  months. 

I    See  Josephus,  Antt'q.,  xiv.  7;  xii.  2. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Education  of  Jesus. 

{a)  The  Home  Circle.  We  know  the  most  essen- 
tial things  about  the  home  of  Jesus,  for  we  know  the 
character  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  we  also  know 
something  about  the  brothers  and  sisters.  Joseph 
and  Mary  belonged  to  that  small  circle  of  Jews  who 
had  a  spiritual  religion.  Joseph  was  a  righteous  man 
(Matt.  i.  19),  /.  t'.,  right  in  his  relations  to  other 
men;  and  he  was  also  obedient  to  the  Lord  (Matt.  i. 
24;  ii.  14,  21-22).  He  had, a  heart  that  was  open  to 
receive  heavenly  messages.  He  appears  in  the  Gos- 
pel narrative  as  having  implicit  trust  in  Mary,  and 
the  tenderest  regard  for  her  (Matt.  i.  19-21).  He 
seems  to  have  taught  Jesus  his  own  trade  of  carpen- 
ter (Mark  vi.  3;  Matt.  xiii.  55),  thus  fitting  his  child 
to  support  himself.  He  lived  until  Jesus  was  twelve 
years  old  (Luke  ii.  42),  and  perhaps  considerably 
longer,^  but  he  seems  to  have  died  before  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus  began  (Matt.   xiii.    55;   Mark  vi.  3). 

I  See  Delitzsch,  Kin  Ta^  I'fi  Capernaum,  1886,  p.  67. 

(108) 


THE    EDUCATION    OF    JESUS.  IO9 

Of  Mary's  mental  and  moral  character  we  have 
somewhat  fuller  traces  than  we  have  regarding 
Joseph's  character.  The  high  favor  bestowed  upon 
her  in  making  her  the  mother  of  the  Messiah  implies 
exceptional  purity  of  heart  and  obedience  to  the  will 
of  God.  Yet  there  is  no  basis  for  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic doctrine  (made  an  article  of  faith  on  December  8, 
1854),  that  Mary,  "  from  the  first  instant  of  her  con- 
ception, by  a  singular  grace  and  privilege  of  Almighty 
God,"  was  "  preserved  free  from  all  stain  of  original 
sin."  There  is  no  ground  for  this  doctrine  in  Scrip- 
ture. On  the  contrary,  we  must  think  of  Mary  as 
subject  to  the  universal  law  of  human  sinfulness. 

It  may  be  inferred  from  Mary's  song^  (Luke  i.  46- 
55)  that  she  had  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
Old  Testament,  for  her  deepest  feelings  express  them- 
selves easily  in  Old  Testament  language.  Her  attend- 
ance on  the  temple  services  at  seasons  when  her  pres- 
ence was  not  required  by  law  indicates  that  she  found 
delight  in  those  services  (Luke  ii.  22,  41).  Mary  was 
of  a  thoughtful  and  contemplative  spirit,  as  is  indi- 
cated by  the  statements  that  she  kept  the  various 
incidents    regarding    Jesus,    pondering    them    in    her 

I  There  is  no  good  reason  apparent  why  Mary  may  not  have 
been  the  author  of  this  song.  She  surely  had  ample  reason  for  sing- 
ing, and  the  hymn  admirably  suits  the  occasion.  The  fact  that  it  is 
largely  an  echo  of  Hannah's  song  is  nothing  against  its  historical 
character. 


MO  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

heart  (Luke  ii.  19,  51).  The  fact  that  Mary  did  not 
fully  realize  what  Jesus  was,  either  in  His  childhood 
or  in  His  ministry  (Luke  ii.  33;  Mark  iii.  21,  31;  John 
ii.  3-4),  is  not  strange,  but  perfectly  natural.  In  the 
long  years  spent  in  Nazareth,  Jesus  had  appeared  to 
her  as  one  of  her  other  children,  except  in  His  spot- 
less purity.  There  was  no  other  indication  of  His 
divine  and  Messianic  character  and  mission.  But 
this  failure  to  realize  fully  what  Jesus  was,  made  it 
possible  for  the  mother  to  treat  Him  in  a  natural  way. 
Nor  is  it  strange  that  Mary  did  not  at  once  understand 
Jesus  after  He  began  His  Messianic  work.  His  ideal 
of  the  Messiahship  was  widely  different  from  the 
popular  thought,  and  even  the  disciples,  who  were 
constantly  with  Him,  came  but  slowly  to  under- 
stand Him. 

Besides  Joseph  and  Mary,  there  were  in  the  home 
of  Jesus  four  brothers'  and  at  least  two  sisters,  all 
younger  than  He.  Two  of  His  brothers  were  men  of 
ability  and  became  influential  in  the  early  Christian 
church.  James  was  highly  esteemed  even  by  the 
unbelieving  Jews.  Together  with  Peter  and  John  he 
was  a  "pillar"  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  9). 

I  Modern  critics  are  generally  agreed  that  the  brothers  of  Jesus 
were  full  brothers,  not  cousins,  nor  half-brothers,  but  children  of 
Joseph  and  Mary.  So  Beyschlag,  Weiss,  Edersheim,  Keim. 
Hase,  etc. 


THE    EDUCATION    OF    JESUS.  I  I  I 

Both  James  and  Jude  have  the  imperishable  honor  of 
being  among  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament. 

Such  was  the  home  circle  in  which  Jesus  spent 
His  youth  and  early  manhood.  It  was  an  ideal 
Israelitish  family.  They  were  poor,  but  not  depend- 
ent. The  prayer  of  Agur  (Prov.  xxx.  8)  was  fulfilled 
in  their  case:  "  Give  me  neither  poverty  nor  riches." 
Joseph  was  a  carpenter  (Matt.  xiii.  55)  and  supported 
his  family  by  the  labor  of  his  hands,  which  was  honor- 
able among  the  Jews,  ^.ven  boys  who  were  set  apart 
to  the  life  of  scribes  learned  some  trade'.  "Love 
work "  was  the  motto  of  Rabbi  Shemaiah,  and 
another  teacher  said,  "  Great  is  work,  for  it  honors  its 
master^" 

The  family  was  ideal  in  that  there  were  numerous 
children,  a  heritage  of  the  Lord  (Ps.  cxxvii.  3).  It 
was  ideal  also  in  that  Joseph  and  Mary  feared  the 
Lord  and  walked  in  the  ways  of  His  commandments. 
Ideal  too  in  that  Joseph  and  Mary  trusted  each  other. 

(b)  The  Study  of  the  Law.  Jesus  grew  in  wisdom 
as  He  grew  in  stature  (Luke  ii.  40,  52).  He  had  a 
child's  knowledge  of  the  law  when  He  was  a  child, 
and  that  was  followed  by  a  youth's  knowledge,  and 
that  in  turn  by  the  mature  knowledge  of  the  man.      In 

1  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrhundert  des  HeiJs,  i.  i6o. 

2  See  Delitzsch,  Juedisches  Hayidxcerkerlebeyi  zur  Zeit  Jesu, 
P-   27. 


112  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS, 

a  home  like  that  of  Joseph  and  Mary  a  child  be^an  to 
■learn  the  law  as  soon  as  it  began  to  speak.  From 
the  dawn  of  consciousness,  says  Josephus',  we  learn 
the  laws  with  accurate  care,  and  hence  have  them  as 
it  were  engraved  on  the  soul.  Paul  says  that  Timothy 
knew  the  sacred  writings  from  his  infancy  (II  Tim. 
iii.  I  5).  So  it  may  well  have  been  with  the  children 
of  Joseph  and  Mary.  It  is  probable  that  the  parents 
taught  Jesus  verses  out  of  the  law  long  before  He  had 
learned  to  read.  It  -is  prtpbable  that  He  learned  to 
read  at  home,  but  uncertain  whether  He  learned  to 
read  the  law  in  Hebrew  or  in  Aramaic.  If  He  knew 
Hebrew  at  all,  which  seems  to  be  implied  in  Matt.  v. 
22,  and  probable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Hebrew 
was  cherished  as  the  sacred  tongue.  He  prob- 
ably learned  it  as  a  child  at  home'.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  He  ever  attended  a  school;  indeed, 
it  is  quite  uncertain  whether  there  were  village  schools 
in  the  time  of  Jesus.  Keim  thinks  the  first  were 
established  about  64  A.  D."',  while  Schiirer*  is  of  the 
opinion  that  they  existed  much  earlier.  But  there 
was  a  synagogue  in  Nazareth  which  Jesus  doubtless 
attended,    and  where   through   many  years  He   heard 


1  Agaitist  Afion,  ii.  18. 

2  See  Keim,  Jesus  of  \azara,  ii.  152-153. 

3  Jesus  oj'  Nazara,  ii.  151. 

4  Neutcstamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  ii.  353 


THE    EDUCATION    OF    JESUS.  II3 

the   law  read    (Mark  vi.    2).      Yet   His   accurate   and 
comprehensive  knowledge  of  the  law  implies  that  He 
studied  it  long  and  patiently  for  Himself.      It  is  prob- 
able that  there  was  a  copy  of  the   Old  Testament  in 
His   home,    or  at   least  of   the  chief  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament.      His   spiritual   understanding  of  the  law 
was  doubtless  due  in  the   main  to  His  own  purity  and 
spirituality,  yet  as  a  child   He   may  have  been  greatly 
helped,  by  His  parents,  to  a  true  apprehension  of  the 
meaning    of    Scripture.      They  had  a  vital  piety,  and 
that  piety  was  sustained  by  their  feeding  on  the  word 
of  God.      So  their  teaching  would  naturally  lead  their 
children  into  the  inner  sense  of  Scripture.    As  it  is  uncer- 
tain whether  Jesus  read  the  law  in  Hebrew,  so  it  is  un- 
certain whether  He  knew  Greek.      It  is  probable,  how- 
ever, that  He  did.       There  were  many  Greek-speaking 
people  throughout  Galilee,  as  through  all  Syria;   and 
further,  Jesus  seems  to  have  spoken  with  certain  Gen- 
tiles without  an  interpreter,    as  with  Pilate,  with  the 
centurion   of  Capernaum,    and   with   the   Canaanitish 
woman,    and  in  such  cases  Greek  was  doubtless  the 
vehicle  of  communication. 

Jesus  did  not  study  the  law  with  the  scribes. 
During  His  ministry  it  was  well  known  that  He  had 
not  learned  it  from  the  recognized  teachers  (John 
vii.   15;   Mark   vi.    2).      He  was  called  ni/?d/\  but  this 


114  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

does  not  imply  that  He  had  received  rabbinical  ordi- 
nation. It  was  simply  an  expression  of  His  disci- 
ples' reverence  for  Him,  which  was  called  forth  by 
His  surpassing  knowledge  of  the  law. 

(c)  The  Study  of  Nature.  From  the  language  of 
Jesus  we  may  infer  that  He  was  a  close  observer  of 
Nature,  and  that  He  had  thought  of  the  meaning  of 
natural  phenomena.  As  evidence  of  this,  we  may 
mention  the  aptness  of  His  man}"  illustrations  drawn 
from  Nature,  and  the  fact  that  not  a  few  of  His  par- 
ables are  based  on  natural  phenomena.  Thus  He 
saw  an  analogy  between  the  visible  world  and  the 
invisible,  and  taught  truths  of  His  kingdom  from 
what  He  observed  in  the  field  and  by  the  wayside. 
He  saw  in  Nature  a  spiritual  significance.  Thus  it 
is  God  who  clothes  the  grass  of  the  field,  and  God 
who  watches  the  fall  of  the  sparrow  (Matt.  vi.  28; 
X.   29). 

That  Jesus  was  a  delighted  student  of  Nature 
might  be  inferred  from  His  description  of  the  beauty 
of  the  lily,  from  His  fondness  for  illustrations  from 
Nature,  and  perhaps  from  His  apparent  fondness  for 
mountain  tops  (Matt.  xvii.  i ;  v.  i;  xiv.  23;  xxviii.  16). 
As  Jesus  looked  upon  Nature,  He  saw  in  it  a  mani- 
festation of  the  goodness  of  God,  and  the  minute- 
ness  of   His  providential   care   (Matt.    v.  45;  vi.  26). 


THE    EDUCATION    OF    JESUS.  I  I  5 

Nature  was  also  a  book  of  mysteries  to  Him  as  it  is 
to  every  thoughtful  observer.  He  recognized  that  a 
man  cannot  tell  whence  the  wind  comes  and  whither 
it  goes  rjohn  iii.  8);  and  cannot  tell  how  the  seed  ger- 
minates and  grows  until  the  full  corn,  appears  in  the 
ear  (Mark  iv.  27).  And  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Jesus  had  more  than  a  man's  knowledge  regarding 
these  things.  We  must  suppose  that  He- looked  out 
upon  the  world  with  a  truly  human  and  hence  limited 
vision,  though  it  was  the  clear  vision  of  an  unfallen 
humanity.  He  saw  in  Nature  the  conflict  and  dis- 
order which  mar  its  harmony.  To  Him  the  tares 
were  like  the  children  of  the  evil  one,  and  the  birds 
catching  away  the  seed  before  it  sprouted  were  like 
Satan  who  takes  away  the  good  word  from  the  heart 
(Matt.  xiii.  38,  19).  Thus  Nature  was  to  Jesus  a 
book,  o  er  whose  pages  He  pondered  long  and  deeply. 
We  will  conclude  this  paragraph  with  a  few^  words 
on  the  personal  appearance  of  Jesus.  The  Jews  said 
to  Jesus  on  a  certain  occasion,  "Thou  art  not  yet 
fifty  years  old"  (John  viii.  57).  From  this  it  might 
perhaps  be  inferred  that  He  looked  somewhat  older 
than  He  really  was.  When  Jesus  was  arrested,  the 
soldiers,  as  they  approached  Him,  were  wholly  over- 
awed by  something  in  His  appearance,  and  fell  to 
the   ground   (John   xviii.     6).      We  might    infer  from 


Il6  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

this  that  His  features  were  capable  of  expressing  in  a 
high  degree  the  majesty  and  greatness  of  His  spirit. 
We  are  doubtless  to  assume  that  Jesus  was  entirely 
free  from  disease.  We  cannot  associate  sickness 
with  an  unfallen  state.  Even  so  we  cannot  think  of 
Jesus  as  dying  a  natural  death.  Death  as  a  fact  in 
His  career  could  come  only  through  the  malice  of 
men,  and  as  the  result  of  His  own  conscious  volition 
(Johnx.  1 8).  All  representations  of  Jesus  have  been 
imaginary,  and  have  expressed  the  ideas  of  the  vari- 
ous ages  in  which  they  have  been  produced.  He  has 
been  painted,  now  as  the  most  wretched,  and  now  as 
the  most  beautiful  of  men. 


CHAPTER    IV. 
The  Baptism  of   Jesus. 

{(r)  The  Data.  The  S3'noptists  ag^ree  in  saying  that 
Jesus  was  baptized  by  John  in  the  Jordan.  They  all 
speak  of  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  Jesus,  and  of  a 
voice  out  of  heaven  (Mark  i.  9- 1 1 ;  Matt.  iii.  13-17;  Luke 
iii.  21-23).  Matthew  alone  records  any  conversation 
between  Jesus  and  the  Baptist.  Acccording  to  Mark 
and  Luke,  [csks  saw  the  spirit  descend  and  heard  the 
voice.  In  Matthew,  it  was  the  Baptist  who  heard 
the  voice,  and  the  narrative  does  not  make  it  plain 
who  saw  the  descent  of  the  Spirit. 

John  does  not  record  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  but 
only  speak-s  of  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  upon  Him 
(John  i.  32-33).  It  is  said  that  the  Baptist  beheld  the 
Spirit  descending,  and  that  this  descent  was  a  si^^n  to 
Him  that  the  one  on  whom  the  Spirit  descended  was 
the  Messiah. 

Jesus  Himself  recognized  the  baptism  of  John 
as  being  from  heaven,  that  is,  as  divinely  appointed 
(Mark    xi.     30);    and    during    the    early    part    of   His 

(  117  ) 


Il8  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

ministry  He  practiced  the  same  baptism  (John  iii, 
22-26;  iv.  2).  John  tells  us  that  Jesus  Himself  did 
not  baptize,  but  His  disciples  performed  the  rite,  of 
course  with  His  approval.  Such  was  Jesus'  own  esti- 
mate of  that  baptism  to  which  He  submitted. 

{b)  Significance  of  the  Water-Baptism  of  Jesus. 
If  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  the  Jordan  had  any  refer- 
ence to  sin,  then  it  must  have  been  to  the  sin  of 
others,  for  He  had  no  sin  of  His  own  to  confess.  So 
some  have  held  that  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  repre- 
sentative. But  this  view  is  improbable  for  the  reason 
that  the  people  themselves  were  coming  with  one 
accord  to  John's  baptism,  and  so  did  not  need  a  rep- 
resentative. And  further,  it  is  improbable  because 
Jesus  had  not  yet  received  the  divine  call  to  the  Mes- 
sianic work,  and  so  could  not  act  representatively  for 
men. 

If,  then,  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was  not  symbolic  of 
a  putting  away  of  sin,  either  His  own  or  that  of  others, 
it  may  best  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  consecration. 
This  was  one  side  of  the  meaning  of  baptism  in  the 
case  of  all  whom  John  baptized.  There  was  not  only 
a  turning  away  from  sin,  but  there  was  also  a  devo- 
tion to  God.  In  the  case  of  Jesus  consecration  did 
not  have  reference  to  holiness,  for  His  life  had  always 
been  holy,    but, it  was  a  public  consecration  to    the 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JESUS.  II9 

Kingdom  of  God,  which  the  Baptist  was  announcing 
as  near  at  hand.  Its  significance  was  chiefly  for 
Jesus,  though  the  act  was  also  a  sign  to  John.  For 
Jesus,  His  baptism  was  a  part  of  the  fulfilment  of 
righteousness  (Matt.  iii.  i  5),  an  act  which  He  regarded 
as  a  duty.  For  all  Israel  were  called  upon  to  pre- 
pare for  the  coming  Kingdom  of  God,  the  best  as 
well  as  the  worst  (Matt.  iii.  2);  and  He,  as  an  Israel- 
ite, though  without  sin,  could  not  refrain  from  a 
public  acknowledgment  of  His  desire  for  that  King- 
dom, or  from  consecration  to  it.  The  meaning  of  the 
act  was  unique  in  His  case  only  in  so  far  as  He  was 
unique. 

(<r)  The  Dove  and  Voice.  There  are  very  grave 
objections  to  the  view  that  the  dove  was  visible  to 
eyes  of  flesh  and  the  voice  audible  to  ears  of  flesh. 
(i)  The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  abiding  perma- 
nently upon  Jesus,  which  is  inconceivable  if  the  Spirit 
was  in  a  visible  form,  unless,  indeed,  we  suppose  that, 
having  descended  in  a  visible  form,  the  Spirit  then 
became  invisible  (John  i.  32-33).  But  of  this  the 
text  has  no  hint.  (2)  Jesus  throughout  His  ministry 
is  represented  as  filled  with  the  Spirit  (John  iii.  34; 
Matt.  xii.  28;  Luke  iv.  i).  The  Spirit  is  not  without 
Him,  but  within  Him.  (3)  If  the  voice  be  thought 
of    as    physical,    there    is    a    plain     conflict     between 


I20        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Matthew  and  Mark.  One  version  would  have  to  be 
omitted.  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  voice  uttered 
both  sayings.  And  which  would  be  rejected  as  unhis- 
torical  ?  (4)  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  would  actually  assume  an  animal  form,  or  that 
Jewish-Christian  writers  with  their  conception  of  the 
incomparable  exaltation  of  Jehovah  would  have 
thought  of  His  Spirit  as  assuming  such  a  form. 

In  view  of  these  objections,  and  in  keeping  with 
the  spiritual  and  inward  character  of  all  New  Testa- 
ment revelation,  the  phenomena  which  accompanied 
the  baptism  of  Jesus  must  be  understood  as  spiritual 
in  character.  The  underlying  reality  may  be  thought 
of  in  this  way.  In  the  hour  of  baptism,  the  convic- 
tion was  divinely  borne  in  upon  the  soul  of  John  that 
the  man  before  him  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  communicated  to  Him  without 
measure.  This  conviction  seems  to  have  come 
through  a  vision,  and  /;/  f/ie  vision  John  may  have 
seen  the  heavens  opened,  and  may  have  seen  the  form 
of  a  dove,  and  may  have  heard  a  heavenly  voice,  just 
as  Peter  in  a  vision  saw  a  sheet  full  of  all  sorts  of 
living  creatures  let  down  out  of  heaven  (Acts  x.  1 1-12), 
and  as  John  in  a  vision  saw  Jesus  under  the  form  of 
a  lamb  (Rev.  v.  6).  The  Baptist  had  previously 
received   the    assurance    that    the    Messiah   would   be 


THE    BAPTISM    OF    JESUS.  12  1 

pointed    out    to    him    by    the    descent   of    the    Spirit 
(John  i.  33). 

Jesus  also  as  well  as  John  saw  and  heard  spirit- 
ually, not  physically.  We  must  either  reject  the 
narrative  of  Mark  and  Luke  as  unhistorical  (so 
Neander,  Beyschlag,  etc.),  or  we  must  hold  that 
Jesus  as  well  as  John  had  a  revelation  in  the  hour 
of  His  baptism.  According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  the 
heavenly  voice  is  addressed  to  Him,  and  He  sees  the 
.S3mbol  of  the  Spirit,  There  is  nothing  necessaril}' 
improbable  in  this  representation,  and  it  is  easier  to 
think  of  Jesus  as  having  a  vision  than  to  regard  this 
narrative  as  wholly  wrong.  A  vision,  however,  in  the 
case  of  Jesus  is  not  a  necessity.  We  may  think  of  an 
immediate  revelation  to  His  spirit.  For  He  was  in 
perfect  fellowship  with  God,  and  nothing  dulled  His 
inner  ear  to  the  divine  voice.  But  that  which  was 
wholly  an  inward  and  spiritual  event  was  set  forth  by 
Jesus,  or  by  the  Baptist,  in  the  concrete  symbolism 
of  our  narrative. 

{d)  Significance  of  the  Spirit-Baptism  of  Jesus. 
Jesus  had  possessed  the  Spirit  all  His  life  as  the  Spirit 
of  holiness.  He  was  a  child  of  the  Spirit  (Luke  i. 
35).  He  had  had  undisturbed  communion  with 
God,  and  had  known  that  God  was  His  Father  (Luke 
ii.  49).      But  at  His  baptism  He  received  the  Spirit  as 


122        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OP^  JESUS. 

the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  might  for  His  Mcssiajiic 
work.  This  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  tempta- 
tion immediately  succeeded  the  baptism.  The  Spirit 
which  had  descended  upon  Him  impelled  Him  into 
the  wilderness  that  He  might  ponder  the  career  now 
opened  before  Him.  The  Spirit  given  at  baptism  and 
the  Messianic  career  of  Jesus  are  not  separable. 
When  Jesus  says  that  He  works  His  miracles  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  (Matt.  xii.  28),  and  when  it  is  said  of 
Him  that  He  came  into  Galilee,  after  His  baptism 
and  temptation,  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  TLuke  iv. 
14),  we   are  to  think  of   the   Spirit  given  at  baptism. 

This  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Messianic  work  of 
Jesus  is  further  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  descent 
of  the  Spirit  was  either  accompanied  or  immediately 
followed  by  the  voice  which  said,  "Thou  art  my 
beloved  Son,  in  Thee  I  am  well  pleased."  These 
words  seem  to  have  echoed  in  the  soul  of  the  Baptist,, 
and  were  to  Him  an  assurance  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah,  who  should  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
(John  i.  29-34).  They  are  based  upon  Old  Testament 
passages,  especially  Psalm  ii.  7,  where  the  Messiah 
is  called  the  Son  of  God.  Hence  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  Spirit  given  to  Jesus  at  His  baptism  was  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  an  equipment  for  the  Messianic  work. 

Almost   all   scholars   agree  that   from  the  time   of 


THE    BAPTISM    OF    JESUS.  1 23 

the   baptism  of  Jesus  forward,  He  was  perfectly  con- 
scious   of    being  the    Messiah;     but    it    is   questioned 
whether  this  consciousness  was  awakened  at  the  bap- 
tism, or  whether  Jesus  had  long  possessed  it.      Weiss' 
thinks  that  Jesus  came  to  the  Jordan  with  a  clear  con- 
sciousness of   His  Messiahship,  and  he  finds  support 
for    this  view    in    the    words   recorded   by    Matthew, 
"Suffer  it  to  be  so  nozi''  (iii.  15).      Here  it  is  implied, 
according  to  Weiss,  that  Jesus  in  subordinating  Him- 
self to  John,  kuezv  that  in  the  future  He  would  not  be 
in  such  a  relation  to  him;   in  other  words,  knew  that 
He  was  the  Messiah.      But  this  is  a  large  inference  to 
draw  from  this  single  particle,  and  cannot  be  allowed 
to  stand  in  view  of  the  varied- evidence   against  the 
possession  of   Messianic  consciousness  by  Jesus  prior 
to  His  baptism.      This  evidence  is  as  follows:     (i)   If 
Jesus   had  been  conscious  of   His  Messianic  character 
when  He  came  to  His  .baptism,  there  was  no  need  of 
the  divine  .assurance  of  this   fact  which  was  given  in 
the  words,   ''Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  Thee  I  am 
well  pleased."     (2)    If   Jesus  had   been  conscious  of 
His  Messiahship  before    His  baptism,  why  should  the 
baptism  introduce  Him  to  temptation  regarding  His 
Messiahship.''     If   His    Messianic  consciousness  ante- 

I  Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  309.  For  the  other  view,  see  e.g-.,  Wendt, 
Die  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  66;  Beldensperger,  Das  Selbstbeiv'usstsein  Jfsu. 
p.  160. 


I  24  THE    STUDENT  S    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

dated  the  baptism,  then  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
temptation  followed  immediatel}'  upon  the  baptism. 
Had  He  known  Himself  as  the  Messiah  long  before 
this  hour  by  the  Jordan,  then  He  must  have  been 
tempted  as  Messiah  long  before.  (3)  In  addition  to 
all  this,  there  is  in  the  Gospels  no  indication  what- 
ever that  Jesus  had  Messianic  consciousness  prior  to 
His  baptism,  excepting  the  doubtful  word  of  Matt.  iii. 
15,  on  which  Weiss  lays  stress.  The  word  of  the 
boy  Jesus  in  the  temple  (Luke  ii.  49)  witnesses  to  a 
consciousness  of  moral  harmony  with  God,  but  of 
nothing  beyond  this.  No  sin  had  alienated  Him 
from  God.  Being  conscious  of  doing  alwa3'S  the 
things  that  pleased  God,  He  could  refer  to  Him  as  my 
FatJicr,  and  must  feel  a  peculiar  interest  in  the 
things  which  pertained  to  His  worship.  The  fact 
that  the  doctors  were  amazed  at  His  understanding 
and  answers  (Luke  ii.  46-47)  is  just  what  might  be 
expected  if  He  had  searched  the  Scriptures  in  the 
light  of  a  perfectly  pure  conscience.  Even  Josephus 
claims  that  when  but  fourteen  years  of  age  he  him- 
self had  such  learning  that  the  high  priests  and  prin- 
cipal men  of  the  city  came  frequentl}^  to  him  in  order 
to  know  his  opinion  about  the  accurate  understand- 
ing of  the  law^      The   knowledge   of   the   boy  Jesus 

I  Life  of  Josefhus,  i. 


THE    BAPTISM    OF    JESUS.  1 25 

may  well  have  been  much  more  spiritual  and  pro- 
found than  that  of  Josephus  without  our  attributing 
to  Him  aught  which  is  not  claimed  by  the  Gospels. 
In  view  of  these  things  we  are  justified  in  saying 
that,  though  Jesus'  consciousness  of  the  presence  of 
the  Father  with  Him  had  been  unique  before  His 
baptism  by  John,  He  had  not  possessed  the  con- 
sciousness of  being  the  Messianic  Son  of  God.  This 
came  in  the  hour  of  baptismal  consecration,  when  the 
divine  voice  bore  in  upon  His  soul  the  words,  "Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son,  in  Thee  I  am  well  pleased." 


CHAPTER   V. 

The  Temptation  of  Jesus. 

(^)      The  Data.      John  says  nothing  of  the  tempta- 
tion; Mark  has  only  a  brief  statement  in  two  verses 
fi.   12-13),  but  Matthew  and  Luke  have  full   accounts 
(Matt.  iv.  i-ii;  Luke  iv.   1-13.)    The  chief  differences 
between  Matthew  and  Luke  are  (r)  that  Matthew  puts 
the   temptation  at  the  close   of  the  forty  days,  while 
Luke  represents  the  entire  period  of  forty  days  as  one 
of  temptation  (so  also  Mark).      And  yet  Luke  puts  the 
particular  temptation   which   is   described  in   full,  at 
the  close  of  the  forty  days,  and  thus  agrees  with  Mat- 
thew in  this  point  while  differing  from  him  in  another. 
[2)   Luke  does  not   agree  with   Matthew   in   the  order 
of  the  second   and  third  temptations.      He  puts  the 
temple-scene  last,  while  Matthew  puts  the   mountain- 
scene  last.     This   is   of   course   a   difference  in   form 
merely,  and  does  not  affect  the  substance  of  the  nar- 
rative.     (3)   Luke  represents  Jesus  as  being  led  about 
by  the  Spirit  during  the   forty   days.      This   idea  that 
Jesus  was  led   about   in   the  wilderness  from  place  to 

(126) 


THE    TEMPTATION    OF    JESUS.  1 2/ 

place  suggests  an  inward  agitation  which  was  reflected 
in  a  certain  outward  restlessness. 

{b)  Time  and  Place.  According  to  Mark,  Jesus 
went  into  the  wilderness  immediately  after  His  bap- 
tism (i.  12).  This  is  intrinsically  probable,  for  in 
the  baptism  Jesus  had  become  conscious  that  He  was 
the  Messiah,  and  it  was  natural  that  He  should  at 
once  retire  where  He  might  quietly  ponder  the  great 
work  which  was  now  definitely  before  Him. 

The  time  spent  in  the  wilderness  is  given  by  the 
Synoptists  as  forty  days,  but  it  is  uncertain  whether 
this  is  to  be  understood  literally  or  figuratively.  A 
figurative  use  of  the  number  is  favored  by  the  general 
parabolic  character  of  the  narrative,  which  will  be 
considered  later.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  inher- 
ently probable  that  Jesus,  at  this  great  crisis  of  His 
life,  spent  a  long  time  in  solitary  thought.  There  is 
nothing  improbable  in  the  statement  of  the  Synoptists 
that  He  was  in  the  wilderness  forty  days,  though  of 
course  this  particular  number,  rather  than  thirty-five 
or  forty-five,  suggests  an  intentional  parallelism  with 
the  experience  of  Moses  and  Elijah  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28; 
I  Kings  xix.  8.) 

The  place  of  temptation  is  located  indefinitely  in 
the  wilderness,  a  name  given  especially  to  the  wild 
region  of  Judea  on   the  west   side  of   the   Dead   Sea. 


128        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Somewhere  in  this  region  the  Baptist  began  his 
preaching  (Matt.  iii.  i).  Luke  says  that  Jesus 
returned  ixovci  the  Jordan  (iv.  i),  and  so  seems  to  have 
thought  of  the  place  of  the  temptation  as  somewhere 
along  the  route  which  Jesus  took  from  the  Jordan  to 
His  home  in  Nazareth.  The  traditional  site  is  a 
mountain  (Quarantania)  about  seven  miles  northwest 
from  Jericho. 

{c)  The  Fasting.  There  was  so/zie  food  to  be  had 
in  the  wilderness,  such  as  locusts  and  wild  honey 
(Matt.  iii.  4),  and  Weiss  supposes  that  Jesus  ate  these 
as  the  Baptist  had  done.  Yet  the  language  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  (as  Weiss  admits)  plainly  implies  that 
Jesus  abstained  from  a//  food,  and  there  seems  to  be 
no  good  reason  for  rejecting  this  view. 

Nothing  is  said  in  regard  to  the  reason  why  Jesus 
fasted.  It  may  be  supposed  that  He  was  so  absorbed 
in  contemplation  of  His  Messianic  work  that  He  was 
not  conscious  of  physical  need.  When  the  period  of 
intense  thought  and  emotion  was  past.  He  became 
aware  of  hunger.  There  is  certainly  no  reason  for  sup- 
posing that  Jesus  purposely  fasted  for  some  special 
end,  as  though  He  hoped  thereby  to  have  a  clearer 
mind  or  a  more  perfect  fellowship  with  the  Spirit. 
The  physical  was  simply  forgotten,  not  forcibly 
suppressed. 


THE    TEMPTATION    OF    JESUS.  1 29 

{d)  The  Content  of  the  Temptations.  The  state- 
ment in  Matthew  iv.  i,  that  Jesus  went  into  the 
wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil  is  to  be  regarded 
as  the  evangelist's  inference  from  what  actnally  hap- 
pened in  the  wilderness.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  Jesus  knew  beforehand  what  was  to  befall  Him 
in  the  wilderness,  and  so  purposely  walked  into 
temptation  contrary  to  His  own  instruction  to  His 
disciples  (Matt.  vi.  13).  The  power  of  the  tempta- 
tion would  have  been  largely  taken  away  had  Jesus 
known  that  it  was  coming  and  just  what  it  was.  It 
would  not  then  have  been  true  that  He  was  tempted 
in  all  points  like  as  we  are  (Heb.  iv.  15).  The  aim 
of  His  retirement  into  the  wilderness  was  to  contem- 
plate His  Messianic  work,  and  with  that  came  the 
temptations.  The  first  (Matt.  iv.  3-4;  Luke  iv.  3-4). 
was  a  temptation  to  prove  His  Messiahship  by  work- 
ing a  miracle  to  supply  His  hunger.  The  tempter 
used  Christ's  physical  need  as  a  ground  for  the  mira- 
cle. He  approached  Christ  along  the  line  of  His 
physical  desire,  but  the  temptation  itself  arose  out  of 
the  violent  contrast  between  the  divine  assurance  of 
Messiahship,  which  he  had  received  at  the  Jordan,  and 
His  present  extreme  need.  This  gave  force  to  the 
tempter's  subtle  insinuation  when  he  said,  " //"  Thou 
art   the   Son   of   God."     So   it   was   a   temptation   to 


I30  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

doubt  the  spiritual  assurance  which  had  been  ^iven  to 
Him  in  the  hour  of  His  baptism,  when  God  had  said 
to  Him,  "  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son."  This  tempta- 
tion was  met  with  the  truth  drawn  from  Israel's  expe- 
rience in  the  wilderness,  that  there  is  something  more 
important  than  bread,  and  that  is  obedience  to  God 
(Deut.  viii.  3).  Jesus  felt  that*  He  was  in  the  wilder- 
ness under  the  impulse  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the 
Spirit  did  not  bid  Him  turn  stones  into  bread.  He 
would  not  seek  confirmation  of  His  Messianic  con- 
sciousness by  attempting  to  work  a  miracle  for  the 
satisfaction  of  bodily  hunger.  Such  an  attempt 
would  be  a  confession  that  He  thought  this  of  more 
importance  than  obedience. 

The  second  temptation  (Matt.  iv.  5-7;  Luke  iv. 
9-12)  was  a  temptation  to  prove  His  Messiahship  by 
some  act  which  would  call  out  the  promised  aid  of 
God.  It  is  as  though  the  tempter  had  said,  "I  see 
that  you  trust  in  the  word  of  God.  Cast  yourself 
upon  it,  then,  and  put  God  to  the  test.  Go  and 
throw  yourself  from  the  temple.  It  is  written,  '  He 
shall  give  His  angels  charge  over  thee,  to  keep  thee  in 
all  thy  ways'"  (Ps.  xci.  11).  This  temptation  came 
along  the  line  of  the  intellectual  man,  as  the  first 
came  along  the  line  of  the  physical. 

The  fair-sounding  suggestion  of  the  tempter  was 


THE    TEMPTATION    OF    JESUS.  I3I 

that  Jesus  should  test  the  word  of  God.  But  Jesus 
recognized  that  such  a  testing  of  the  word  of  God 
would  really  be  a  tempting  of  God,  and  so  be  sinful 
(Deut.  vi.  16).  For  it  would  involve  an  audacious 
■  violation  of  certain  plain  laws  of  God,  and  that  for 
the  avowed  purpose  of  forcing  God  to  prove  His 
faithfulness  to  His  promises.  It  would  be  a  sin 
against  humility  and  faith,  qualities  which  should  be 
perfect  in  the  Messiah.  It  would  be  a  sin  against 
reason  to  risk  His.  life  for  an  ocular  proof  of  God's 
care,  when  He  had  received  the  clearest  assurance  of 
it  in  His  own  soul  but  a  few  days  before. 

The  third  temptation  (Matt.  iv.  8-10;  Luke  iv. 
5-8)  was  a  temptation  to  fall  in  with  the  popular  idea 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  The  temptation  in  this 
instance  was  primarily  along  the  line  of  Jewish 
patriotism.  It  was  also  an  appeal  to  human  ambition, 
and  the  thought  seemed  to  be  supported  by  many  Old 
Testament  passages  which  refer  to  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah  as  outward  and  material. 

In  this  third  temptation  there  is  no  question  about 
the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus.  This  is  granted  by 
the  tempter.  The  temptation  concerns  the  method 
of  realizing  the  Messianic  ideal.  Shall  this  be  the 
popular  method,  on  the  plane  of  physical  force,  or 
shall  it  be  a  spiritual  method  }     In  other  words,  shall 


132  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

the  Messianic  kingdom  be  a  kingdom  of  the  devil  or 
of  God  ?  This  is  the  final  question.  To  fall  in  with 
the  popular  conception  would  virtually  be  to  worship 
Satan.  So  this  temptation  is  overcome,  and  now  the 
circle  is  complete.  The  tempter  has  approached  Jesus 
on  the  physical,  the  intellectual,  and  the  spiritual 
side,  and  each  time  in  vain. 

(e)  The  Form  of  the  Temptation.  The  for^n  in  which 
the  temptation  came  to  Jesus  is  of  secondary  import- 
ance. The  historical  faat  of  a  temptation  is'  conceded 
even  -by  such  writers  as  Keim,  and  the  essential 
thought  of  the  narrative  in  Matthew  and  Luke  is  in 
the  main,  at  least,  intelligible.  This  being  the  case, 
it  is  not  of  primary  importance  to  know  kozu  Jesus 
was  tempted.  Yet  even  here  we  are  not  wholly  in 
darkness.  We  may  be  reasonably  certain  that  the 
narrative  is  symbolic.  Taken  literally,  it  is  not,  as 
Keim  says,  in  keeping  with  the  moral  character  of 
Jesus,  for  He  would  have  recognized  Satan  at  least 
after  the  first  temptation,  and  could  have  had  no 
further  parley  with  him.  Taken  literally,  the  third 
temptation  would  cease  to  be  a  temptation  to  Jesus, 
it  is  so  gross.  Even  an  ordinarily  good  man  would 
^  recoil  with  horror  from  a  proposition  to  worship  the 
devil,  this  proposition  being  made  by  the  devil  in 
person.      Further,  it   is   preposterous  to  suppose  that 


THE    TEMPTATION    OF    JESUS.  I  33 

the  devil  actually  carried  Jesus  to  the  top  of  the 
temple  and  again  to  the  top  of  some  high  mountain. 
If  this  is  taken  literally,  we  must  suppose  either  that 
the  devil  forced  Him  to  go,  which  is  inconceivable, 
since  the  devil  had  never  had  any  power  in  or  over 
Jesus;  or  we  must  suppose  that  Jesus  went  voluntarily 
with  the  devil,  which  is  an  impossible  supposition,  for 
to  have  gone  voluntarily  with  the»  devil  would  have 
been  sin. 

We  are  therefore  compelled  to  take  the  narrative 
symbolically.      This  howeyer   is    in   keeping  with  the 
method   of  Jesus.      He  frequently   set  forth   spiritual 
truths  in   concrete  forms  (see  c.  g.  Luke  x.   i8;  John 
i.  51;  xiv.  30).      So  it  is  in  this  case.      The  tempta- 
tion  was   a   spiritual   struggle    with   an   invisible    foe. 
Thoughts  were  presented   to   the    mind  of  Jesus,  and 
courses  of  action  were  suggested,  which  He  recognized 
as  of  Satanic  origin.     To  follow  out  these  suggestions 
would   be   to    follow    Satan.      When    Jesus    told   His 
disciples    about    His  struggle    in    the   wilderness,    He 
put  the  spiritual  reality  in  a    popular  and  comprehen- 
sible form.      But   to   hold    that    the   narrative   of  the 
temptation   is  symbolic   is    by  no   means  to  deny  the 
reality  of    Satan   or    the    reahty    of    the   temptation. 
These   realities  are  in  no  wise   affected   by  this  inter- 
pretation.     On  the  contrary,  it  is   easier  to   see  how 


134  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

the  temptation  was  a  real  temptation  when  it  is 
carried  into  the  mind  of  Jesus,  than  when  we  think 
of  it  as  a  conversation  between  Jesus  and  the  visible 
devil,  or  some  representative  of  the  devil,  as  for 
example,  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  it  is  more 
in  keeping  with  the  character  of  the  devil,  who  is  a 
spirit  full  of  subtlety,  to  suppose  that  his  approach 
to  Jesus  was  in  a  purely  spiritual  way. 

[f)  Subsequent  Temptations  of  Jesus.  It  is  said  in 
Luke  V.  13  that  the  tempter  left  ]esus /or  a  time,  the 
implication  being  that  later  he  assailed  Him  again. 
This  is  in  keeping  with  the  words  of  Jesus  in  Luke 
xxii.  28,  where,  looking  back  over  His  entire  minis- 
try. He  says  to  the  twelve:  "Ye  are  they  who  have 
continued  with  me  in  my  temptations  "  [pcirasinois). 
We  have  a  suggestion  as  to  the  character  of  these 
temptations  in  Mark  viii.  33,  where  Jesus  calls  Peter 
Satan,  because  Peter  had  sought  to  turn  Him  from 
His  course  of  suffering.  His  Messianic  career  must 
have  been  one  long  temptation,  inasmuch  as  He  was 
solicited,  now  by  the  deep  impression  which  His 
miracles  made,  and  now  by  the  failure  to  win  any 
considerable  response  to  His  spiritual  teaching, — He 
was  solicited  to  turn  from  His  divine  ideal  to  the 
ideal    of    the    people.      The  fact    that    these    subse- 

I   See  J.  P.  Lange,  in  Commentary  on  Matthevu. 


THE    TEMPTATION    OF    JESUS.  1 35 

quent  temptations  of  Jesus  are  represented  by  Luke 
as  being  temptations  by  Satan,  no  less  than  the  first 
great  temptation  in  the  wilderness,  together  with  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  suggestion  of  a  visible  devil  in 
connection  with  them,  confirms  the  above  interpreta- 
tion of  the  first  temptation. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

A  Bird's-Eye  View  of  the  Ministry  of  Jesus. 

(a)  Length  of  Christ's  Ministry.  (i)  Extreme 
Views.  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  some  other  early 
writers  held  that  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  continued 
only  one  year.  This  view  was  based  on  tuke  iv.  19, 
"the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord."  Some  modern 
writers,  as  Keim,  adopt  this  view,  but  base  it  upon 
the  fact  that  the  Synoptists  mention  only  one  Pass- 
over in  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  Neither  of  these  argu- 
ments is  valid.  It  is  plainly  unsafe  to  take  the  sym- 
bolic language  which  Luke  quotes  from  Isaiah,  as  an 
exact  chronological  statement.  And  the  fact  that  the 
Synoptists  mention  only  one  Passover  has  little  weight 
when  it  is  remembered  that  they  do  not  aim  to  give  a 
chronological  outline  of  Christ's  life.  Further,  while 
the  Synoptists  make  explicit  mention  of  only  one 
Passover  in  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus,  they  yet 
seem  to  imply  that  there  was  more  than  one  when 
they  represent  Jesus  as  saying  to  Jerusalem,  "How 
often   would  I   have  gathered  thy  children  together " 

(136) 


bird's-eye  view  of  the  ministry.  137 

{Matt,  xxiii.  37).  ,  This  word  was  spoken  before  the 
last  Passover,  and  plainly  implies  earlier  visits.  But 
Jesus  seems  to  have  visited  Jerusalem  chiefly,  if  not 
exclusively,  at  the  times  of  feasts.  Moreover,  the 
view  that  the  ministry  of  Jesus  continued  only  one 
year  has  against  it  the  great  difficulty  of  crowding  into 
so  brief  a  space  all  the  events  that  are  recorded  by 
the  Synoptists.  They  know  of  extended  sojourns  in 
Capernaum,  of  several  tours  through  Galilee,  of 
periods  of  withdrawal  into  solitude  with  the  disciples; 
they  know  of  the  gradual  growth  of  a  band  of  follow- 
ers, from  whom  at  length  twelve  apostles  were  chosen, 
and  they  know  of  a  protracted  training  of  these. 
Therefore  the  Synoptists,  instead  of  witnessing  for  a 
ministry  of  one  year,  require  us  to  think  that  it  was 
longer. 

A  second  extreme  view  is  that  of  Irenseus,  who 
held  that  Jesus  attained  the  age  of  more  than  forty 
years,  and  taught  more  than  ten  years.  He  found 
Scripture  support  for  this  in  John  viii.  57,  where  the 
Jews  say,  "  Thou  art  not  yet^/Zj'  years  old,"  and  he 
also  appealed  to  tradition.  This  view  has  a  recenl 
advocate  in  Dr.  Delff,^  who  thinks  Jesus  was  more 
than  forty  years  old  when  His  ministry  began. 

(2)    The  Probable  Viezv.      The  Synoptists  give  no 

I   Die  Geschichte  des  Rahbi  Jesus  voyi  Nazareth,    1886,  p.   251. 


138        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

definite  information  on  the  length  of  Christ's  minis- 
try, but,  as  has  been  said,  the  character  and  amount 
of  their  material  point  to  a  ministry  of  more  than  one 
year.  The  Gospel  of  John,  however,  refers  certainly 
to  three  Passovers  in  the  period  of  Christ's  public 
work  (ii.  13;  vi  4;  xiii.  1%  and  therefore  implies  a 
ministry  of  at  least  two  full  years.  In  another  pas- 
sage (v.  i)  he  refers  to  a  feast  which  some  believe  to 
have  been  a  Passover.  If  this  view  were  established, 
John  would  witness  for  a  public  ministry  of  three 
full  years.  But  the  objections  to  finding  a  Passover 
in  John  v.  i  seem  to  be  conclusive.  First,  the  pre- 
ponderance of  manuscript- authority  is  for  the  reading 
a  feast,  not  ///f  feast.  It  is,  however,  wholly  unlikely 
that  John  would  refer  to  the  great  feast  of  the  Pass- 
over simply  as  a  feast  of  the  Jews.  In  every  other 
case  he  calls  it  by  its  name,  the  Passover,  and  when 
he  adds  to  this  the  word  feast,  he  says  the  feast 
(vi.  4).  Second,  if  the  feast  of  v.  i  is  a  Passover, 
then  out  of  an  entire  year  of  Christ's  ministry  John 
records  only  a  single  incident,  for  chapter  vi.  4  brings 
us  to  another  Passover.  But  it  is  highly  improbable 
that  John  records  only  a  single  event  for  a  whole  year 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 

Third,  the  reference  in  vii.  23  to  the  man  who  had 
been  healed  in  chapter  v.  is  against  taking  the  feast  of 


bird's-eye  view  of  the  ministry.  139 

V.  I  as  a  Passover,  since  in  that  case  a  year  and  a  half 
had  elapsed  between  the  healing  and  the  reference  to 
it,  for  this  reference  is  made  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles 
fjohn  vii.  2),  and  one  Passover  had  intervened 
between  this  and  the  feast  of  John  v.  i  (John  vi.  4). 
But  this  reference  is  more  easily  understood  if  the  case 
of  healing  was  still  fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  hearers. 

Hence  we  conclude  that  John  v.  i  does  not  refer 
to  a  Passover,  and  consequently  that  John  witnesses 
for  a  public  ministry  of  two  full  years.  This  time 
must  be  slightly  extended,  since  the  public  life  of 
Jesus  dates  from  His  baptism,  and  between  the  bap- 
tism and  the  first  Passover  fell  the  temptation,  the 
tarrying  by  the  Jordan,  the  sojourn  in  Cana,  and  the 
visit  in  Capernaum.  If  the  forty  days  of  the  tempta- 
tion be  understood  literally,  then  this  interval  between 
the  baptism  and  the  Passover  may  have  been  seven  or 
eight  weeks  in  length.  If  then  Jesus  was  thirty  years 
old  at  the  time  of  His  baptism.  He  was  just  past 
thirty-two  when  He  was  crucified.  He  died  and  rose 
again  in  the  early  prime  of  manhood.  The  dispro- 
portion between  the  length  of  His  ministry  and  its 
results  is  wholly  without  a  parallel  in  history,  and 
inexplicable  on  natural  grounds. 

(c)  The  Chronological  Outline.  The  Synoptists  do  not 
aim  to  give  all  their  material  in  chronological  order, 


140  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

and  certain  important  sections  of  the  ministry  they 
omit  entirely.  Further  they  do  not  wholly  a^ree 
either  with  John  or  with  each  other  in  the  chrono- 
logical data  which  they  give.  John's  Gospel  is  the 
only  one  that  contains  anything  like  a  chronological 
outline  of  Christ's  ministry.  This  is  very  general, 
and  concerns  chiefly  the  material  which  John  himself 
gives.  It  does  not  help  to  determine  the  place  or 
sequence  of  events  which  are  recorded  by  the  Synop- 
tists  only.  Yet  the  Synoptic  material,  in  the  main, 
easily  arranges  itself  under  the  outline  of  John's 
Gospel,^  and  so  we  can  get  a  synopsis  of  the  ministry, 
chronological  and  topographical,  which  is  measurably 
complete. 

The  brief  public  life  of  Jesus  was  a  perfect  unit, 
controlled  throughout  by  a  single  purpose,  and  mov- 
ing steadily  toward  its  goal.  It  was  not  divided  into 
periods  by  any  changes  of  plan  on  His  part,  or  by  any 
developments  through  which  He  passed.  Yet  there 
are  certain  milestones  in  the  ministry,  dividing  it  into 
nine  periods  of  varying  length,  as  follows: 

1.  From  the  baptism  to  the  first  Passover.  Ap- 
proximately two  months  (John  i.  29,  35,  43;  ii.  i, 
12;  Mark  i.   13;  Matt.  iv.   1-2). 

2.  From  the   first  Passover  to  December  of  the 


I  Corap.  Beyschlag,  Leben  Jesu,  i.  250;  Weiss,  Leheji  Jesu,  i.  no. 


bird's-eye  view  of  the*  ministry.  141 

same  year.  Approximately  eight  months  (John  ii. 
13;  iv.  3).  The  ground  of  the  statement  that  this 
period  extended  to  December  is  found  in  John  iv.  35. 
While  in  Samaria,  Jesus  said  to  His  disciples,  "Say 
not  ye,  there  are  yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh 
harvest  ?  "  Now  the  harvest  began  to  be  gathered  the 
first  of  April.  Four  months  prior  to  that  would  be 
the  first  of  December.^  Some  writers  (e.  g.  Bey- 
schlag)  have  thought  that  this  statement  might  be 
regarded  as  a  proverb,  and  thus  have  no  bearing  on 
the  time  of  year  when  Jesus  was  in  Samaria.  But  this 
saying  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  proverbial  designation 
of  the  interval  between  sowing  and  reaping,  since  that 
interval  was  six  months  rather  than  four.  Then  the 
word  yet,  —  "  There  are  yet  four  months, "  seems  to  in- 
dicate plainly  that  the  statement  is  chronological. 
Edersheim's*  view  of  this  passage  is  surely  unexegetical. 
He  inverts  the  order  of  the  sentences,  and  puts  the 
reference  to  white  fields  first.  But  this  is  impossible, 
for  the  words  of  Christ  introducing  this  statement 
presuppose  just  such  a  thought  as  has  gone  before. 
Christ's  emphatic  "  /  say  "  is  plainly  the  antithesis  of 
what  they  were  saying,  and  presupposes  it. 

And  further,  if  this  inversion   is  made,   the  other 

1  Comp.  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  420. 

2  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  ii.     Appendix  xv. 


142        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Statement  about  there  being  yet  four  months  before 
harvest  seems  unintelligible.  Edersheim  thinks  the 
disciples  were  at  this  time  discouraged  by  the  apparent 
remoteness  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  But  apart 
from  the  difficulty  of  attributing  to  them  such  a 
thought  at  this  early  day,  before  the  ministry  of  Christ 
had  really  begun,  there  is  no  ground  for  this  figurative 
interpretation  of  the  words:  '^ There  are  yet  four 
months  and  the  harvest  comes." 

3.  From  December  to  March.  Approximately 
three  months  (John  iv.  35;  v.  i).  This  division 
assumes  that  the  feast  of  John  v.  i,  was  the  feast  of 
Purim  on  the  15  th  of  Adar. 

4.  From  March  to  the  second  Passover.  Approx- 
imately one  month  (John  v.   i;   vi.  4). 

5.  From  the  second  Passover  to  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles.    Approximately  six  months  (John  vi.  4;  vii.  2). 

6.  From  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  to  the  feast  of 
Dedication.  Approximately  three  months  (John  vii. 
2;   x;  22). 

7.  From  the  feast  of  Dedication  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Lazarus.  Approximately  three  months  (John 
X.  22;  xi.  44). 

8.  From  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  to  the 
Crucifixion.  Approximately  three  weeks  (John  xi. 
44;   xii.   i;   xix.   18). 


BIRDS-EVE    VIEW    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  1 43 

9.  From  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  to  His  Ascen- 
sion. Forty  days  (John  xx-xxi;  Luke  xxiv;  Matthew 
xxviii;  Acts  i.  9). 

(c)  The  Topographical  Outline. 

In  the  first  period  {2  months)  Jesus  went  from  the  Jordaii  to  Jeru- 
salem, by  way  of  the  zcilderyiess,  Cana  and  Caferyiaum. 

The  second  period  (8  months)  was  spent  in  Judea. 

The  third  period  (3  months)  was  spent  in  Galilee,  with  a  brief  sojourn 
in  Samaria. 

The  fourth  period  (i  month)  was  spent  partly  in  Jerusalem  and 
partly  in  Galilee. 

The  fifth  period  (6  months)  was  spent  in  Galilee,  with  a  brief  sojourn 
on  heathen  soil  and  in  the  Decapolis. 

The  sixth  period  (3  months)  was  spent  in  Jerusalem,. 

The  seventh  period  (3  months)  was  spent  in  Perea. 

The  eighth  period  (3  weeks)  was  spent  in  Bethatiy,  Epkrai??i  and 
Jerusalem. 

In  the  ninth  period  (40  days)  the  risen  Lord  appeared  to  His  dis- 
ciples in  Jerusalem  and  its  vicinity,  and  in  Galilee. 

It  appears  from  this  survey  that  Jesus  spent  nearly 
twelve  months  in  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  a  longer 
time  than  He  spent  in  Galilee.  However,  eight 
months  of  this  time  seem  to  have  been  relatively 
unimportant  for  the  Messianic  work.  And  speaking 
approximately,  He  spent  nine  months  in  Galilee  (this 
including  the  sojourn  on  heathen  soil  in  the  vicinity 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  the  visits  to  Decapolis),  and 
three  months  in  Perea. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Ministry. 

(<^)  At  the  Jordan.  After  the  temptation,  Jesus 
and  John  saw  each  other  again  at  the  Jordan,  and  the 
meeting  was  for  both  important.  For  John,  because 
it  gave  him  repeated  opportunity  to  bear  pubhc  testi- 
mony that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  (John  i.  29-34);  and 
for  Jesus,  because  it  gave  Him  His  first  disciples.  The 
testimony  of  the  Baptist  has  been  denied  to  him  wholly 
(e.  g.  by  Holtzmann)  or  in  part  (e.  g.  by  Weiss),  and 
has  been  attributed  to  the  evangelist,  in  the  thought 
that  it  is  too  spiritual  and  universalistic  to  fit  the 
forerunner.  But,  in  reply  to  these  views,  it  may  be 
observed  that  even  in  the  Synoptists  we  find  that  the 
Baptist  was  deeply  impressed  by  the  personality  of 
the  Messiah  (Matt.  iii.  14),  and  that  the  Messiah  bore 
witness  to  the  greatness  of  the  Baptist  (Matt.  xi.  9-1 1). 
If  Jesus  regarded  him  as  the  Elijah  who  should  pre- 
cede the  Messiah,  it  would  certainly  be  remarkable  if 
he  had  no  appreciation  of  the  spiritual  and  funda- 
mental side  of  the   Messiah's  work   as   sketched,    for 

( 144 ) 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  1 45 

example,  by  Isaiah.  So  the  testimony  of  the  Synop- 
tists  stands  in  the  way  of  our  denying  the  essentially 
historical  character  of  the  words  which  John  ascribes 
to  the   Baptist. 

Moreover  the  minutely  circumstantial  character 
of  the  entire  passage  regarding  the  Baptist  (John  i. 
19-39)  speaks  for  the  historical  value  of  the  words 
which  are  put  upon  his  lips. 

The  thought  of  the  Baptist  in  the  words,  "Behold 
the  lamb  of  God,  who  bears  the  sin  of  the  world,"  is 
an  echo  of  the  profound  teaching  of  Isaiah  liii.  Jesus 
is  the  meek,  unresisting  sacrifice  of  God.  The  Bap- 
tist like  Simeon  saw  that  the  Messiah  would  be  a 
sufferer,  and  that   His  great   work  had  to  do  with  sin. 

But  we  need  not  suppose  that  John  the  Baptist, 
in  calling  Jesus  the  lamb  of  God,  had  clear  knowledge 
of  the  specific  way  in  which  Jesus  would  at  last  bear 
the  sins  of  the  people.  This  is  not  required  by  the 
language,  and  indeed  is  not  probable. 

This  second  meeting  with  John  was  important  for 

Jesus,  as  just  observed,  because  it  gave  Him  His  first 

disciples.      There   is   no   indication   that    the    Baptist 

even   suggested   to  his  disciples  that  they  should  leave 

him  and  follow  Jesus.      All  that  he  did  was  to  testify 

that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.      This   of  course  implied 

that  it  was  their  duty  to   follow   Him;  and  when  the 
10 


146        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Baptist  declared  a  second  time  that  Jesus  was  the 
lamb  of  God,  two  of  his  disciples,  Andrew  and 
John,'  went  after  Jesus.  They  had  a  long  interview 
with  Him  in  His  lodging,  and  were  convinced  that  He 
was  the  Messiah.  More  than  a  half  century  later, 
John  remembered  the  exact  hour  of  this  meeting  with 
Jesus  (John  i.  39).  Simon,  Philip,  and  Nathanael 
were  soon  won  by  Jesus,  making  five  in  the  first  circle 
of  disciples.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  three 
were  also  disciples  of  the  Baptist,  for  they  lived  at  a 
distance  from  the  scene  of  the  baptism  (Simon  and 
Philip  in  Bethsaida,  John  i.  44,  and  Nathanael  in 
Cana,  John  xxi.  2),  and  we  must  suppose  that  they 
had  been  drawn  thither  by  the  call  of  the  Baptist. 
Thus  four,  probably  five  (if  Nathanael  and  Bartholo- 
mew were  names  of  the  same  person)  of  the  subse- 
quent twelve  apostles  had  been  under  the  tuition  of  the 
Baptist.  Others  may  have  been.  This  group  of  four 
included  the  chief  apostles,  Peter,  James,  and  John. 

It  seems  probable  that  James  and  John  were  own 
cousins  of  Jesus,  their  mothers  being  sisters  (John 
xix.  25;  comp.  with  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  Mark  xliv.  40). 
Ail  the  five  were  Galileans. 


I  The  evangelist  identifies  himself  with  the  beloved  disciple  (xix. 
26,  35).  He  does  not  name  this  disciple;  but  since  he  names  Peter 
(i.  41-42),  and  since  the  brother  of  John  was  martyred  in  44  A  D. 
(Acts  xii.  2),  he  evidently  claims  to  be  John,  for  according  to  the 
Synoptists  the   three   intimate  disciples  were  Peter,  James  and  John, 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  1 47 

In  connection  with  the  call  of  these  men  two  inci- 
dents are  especially  noteworthy.  In  the  case  of 
Nathanael  and  perhaps  of  Simon  also,  Jesus  was  given  a 
more  than  human  knowledge.  In  regard  to  Nathanael, 
Jesus  not  only  read  his  character  as  he  approached, 
but  He  also  declared  that  He  had  seen  him  under  the 
iig-tree;  this  seeing  impressed  Nathanael  as  divine 
and  is  so  presented  by  the  evangelist.  Whether  the 
iig-tree  was  in  distant  Cana  (so  Weiss),  or  elsewhere, 
cannot  be  certainly  determined.  But  it  was  some- 
where beyond  the  range  of  mortal  vision.  Thus  a 
supernatural  knowledge  regarding  Nathanael  was 
given  to  Jesus.  With  regard  to  Peter  the  narrative 
does  not  require  us  to  think  of  supernatural  knowl- 
edge. Jesus  gave  Simon  a  new  name  which  implied 
that  He  saw  to  the  center  of  his  character.  He  said 
that  he  should  be  called  a  rock.  But  Simon  was  an 
impulsive  man,  and  superficially  judged  was  not  a 
rock-like  character.  Yet  this  deep  insight  of  Jesus 
does  not  necessarily  involve  supernatural  knowledge. 

The  case  of  Nathanael,  however,  as  reported, 
admits  of  no  other  explanation.  Jesus  saw  what  no 
unaided  man  could  have  seen.  But  we  must  not  draw 
from  this  fact  the  inference  that  He  always  had  super- 
natural knowledge  by  virtue  of  His  very  being.  We 
might    as    well    argue    that    because    He    sometimes 


148  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

wrought  miracles,  therefore  He  did  it  by  virtue  of  a 
power  inherent  in  His  being.  But  He  Himself  teaches 
us  that  this  was  not  the  case.  He  wrought  His 
miracles  by  the  finger  of  God  or  by  the  Spirit 
of  God  (Matt.  xii.  28;  Luke  xi.  20).  And  the  fourth 
Gospel,  which  has  been  accused  of  magnifying  the 
power  of  Christ  beyond  what  is  found  in  the  Synop- 
tists,  is  most  explicit  on  this  point,  as  the  scene  at  the 
tomb  of  Lazarus  proves  (John  xi.  41-42).  The  super- 
natural knowledge  of  Jesus,  like  His  supernatural 
power,  must  be  regarded  as  part  of  His  Messianic 
equipment,  a  gift  from  the  Father,  according  to  the 
needs  of  His  work. 

[b)  At  Cana.  On  the  third  day  after  leaving  the 
Jordan,  Jesus  with  His  five  disciples^  attended  a  wed- 
ding in  Cana  of  Galilee  (John  ii.  i.)  This  place,  if 
identified  with  the  modern  Ke/r  Kenna,  was  between 
three  and  four  miles  northeast  from  Nazareth  on  the 
road  to  Capernaum.  Jesus  seems -to  have  been  asked 
because  His  mother  was  there,  and  His  disciples  were 
asked  out  of  respect  to  Him.  There  is  some  evidence 
that  Cana  was  at  this  time  the  home  of  Mary.  Thus 
in  John  iv.  46,  when  Jesus  returns  to  Galilee  after  the 
early   Judean    ministry.    He    goes   at  once    to    Cana, 

I   Or  six,   if  John   i.    41   implies   that  as  Andrew  found  his  ozcw 
brother  /f;'5/,  so  John  found  his  brother  also,  but  later. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  1 49 

which  is  natural  if  His  mother  was  there.  Again, 
when  Jesus  visited    Nazareth,    His   townspeople   said, 

*'Is  not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  and 
brother  of  James,  and  Joses,  and  Judas,  and  Simon? 
and  are  not  His  sisters  Jiere  zvith  usT  (Mark  vi.  3). 
This  passage  suggests  that  the  mother  and  brothers 
had  left  Nazareth,  while  the  sisters  had  remained. 
Then  in  John  ii.  12  we  read  that  the  brothers  of  Jesus 
went  with  Him  to  Caperaaum,  after  the  wedding  in 
Cana,  though  no  mention,  of  them  had  been  made  in 
connection  with  the  feast. 

The  contrast  between  the  Baptist's  mission  and  that 
of  Jesus  is  brought  out  vividly  by  this  wedding 
in  Cana.  John  went  into  the  wilderness,  Jesus  into  the 
home.  John  ate  only  locusts  and  wild  honey;  Jesus 
partook  of  a  marriage  feast.  John  pointed  forward  to 
the  Messianic  kingdom  as  that  which  would  bring  joy 
to  the  righteous;  Jesus  in  the  fulness  of  His  Messianic 
power  gives  joy. 

Three  points  in  the  narrative  deserve  special  notice. 
( I )  Marys  remark  to  Jesus.  Weiss^  supposes  that  she 
had  in  mind  natural  help,  when  she  came  to  Jesus  and 
told  Him  that  the  wine  had  all  been  used.  In  sup- 
port of  this  he  mentions  the  fact  that  Jesus  had  not 
yet  wrought  a   miracle.      He    says  also  that  what  the 

I  Das  Leben  Jesii^  i.  365. 


150        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

mother  had  experienced  at  the  birth  of  Jesus  would 
turn  her  thought  only  to  the  high  destination  of  her 
Son,  but  not  to  a  higher  nature  by  virtue  of  which  an 
unlimited  power  to  work  miracles  stood  at  His  dis- 
.  posal.  He  thinks  it  quite  improbable  that  she  had 
heard  of  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist  and  the  experi- 
ences of  the  disciples. 

Now  to  begin  with  this  last  point  first.  It  seems 
wellnigh  incredible  that  these  men  who  believed  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah  should  not  have  spoken  of 
their  belief,  and  should  not  have  told  what  had  tran- 
spired by  the  Jordan.  When  the  heart  is  full,  the 
lips  overflovv'.  There  was  no  other  subject  of  con- 
versation to  be  compared  with  that. 

Then  Mary's  knowledge  of  the  wondrous  circum- 
stances connected  with  the  birth  of  Jesus,  while  it 
might  not  justify  the  belief  in  "a  higher  nature  by 
virtue  of  which  an  unlimited  power  to  work  miracles 
stood  at  His  disposal,"  would  certainly  make  it  natu- 
ral for  her  to  think  that  Jesus  might  one  day  do  such 
wondrous  works -as  had  been  done  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophets.  To  receive  power  from  God  to  work 
a  miracle  is  one  thing;  to  have  a  higher  nature  by 
virtue  of  which  unlimited  power  to  work  miracles 
stands  at  one's  disposal  is  quite  a  different  thing. 

Further,   it    is    unfavorable    to   Weiss'    view,  that 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  I5I 

Jesus  had  no  money  with  which  to  buy  wine,  and  as 
far  as  we  know  had  no  friends  in  Cana  who  could 
have  helped  Him.  Therefore  it  seems  on  the  whole 
probable  that  Mary,  in  reporting  the  state  of  things 
to  Jesus,  did  it  with  at  least  a  trembling  hope 
that  He  would  help  in  a  manner  behtting  Him  as  the 
Messiah, 

(2)  TJie  forui  of  the  Miracle.  Beyschlag^  thinks 
the  miracle  was  wholly  in  Christ's  power  over  the 
minds  of  the  company.  He  thinks  Jesus  had  opened 
the  treasure  of  His  heart  and  spoken  words  of  eternal 
life,  and  that  all  hung  upon  his  lips  entranced.  While 
in  this  condition,  Mary  presented  the  need  of  wine, 
and  Jesus  after  a  moment  saw  that  His  Father  would 
glorify  Him  here.  ^'  He  feels  in  Himself  the  momen- 
tary power  to  extend  even  to  the  senses  of  the  guests 
that  fascination  of  spirits  which  at  the  hour  streams 
from  Him,  and  to  create  for  them  out  of  the  simplest 
elements  new  and  better  wedding  wine.  He  will  set 
before  them  simple,  clear  water,  and  .by  virtue  of  His 
will,  which  controls  them  psychologically,  it  will  taste 
like  the  most  precious  wine.  So  by  a  wondrous  law 
which  the  latest  science  has  established,  and  not  by  a 
transubstantiation  which  mocks  all  natural  laws,  we 
must  explain  the  miracle  at  Cana,   without  lessening 

I  Das  Leben  Jesii,  ii.  132-135. 


152        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

its     genuinely    miraculous     character,    its    derivation 
from  the  nature-controlling  holy  will-power  of  Jesus." 
But  we  cannot  hold  this  view  without  doing  vio- 
lence to  the  text.      Thus  the  narrative  does  not  say  a 
word  about  Jesus'  teaching  on  this  occasion.     Had  He 
taught   so   as  to   produce   the  effect  which  Beyschlag 
supposes,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  evangelist   has   no 
allusion  to  it.      Then  the  narrative  locates  the  conver- 
sation   between    Mary  and  Jesus  not   in  the  feasting 
hall,    but    in   the.  room   where   the   water-pots  stood, 
perhaps  the  vestibule.      Further,    the  recorded  effect 
of  the  .miracle  is  also,  against  the  view  of  Beyschlag. 
For  if  the  entire  company  had  been  so  impressed  by 
Christ's   words   that   the  water   which   He  gave  them 
seemed  like   the   best   of   wine,  then  it  is  remarkable 
that   only  the    five   disciples   who    had    followed  Him 
from  the  Jordan  believed  on  Him  (John  ii.   1 1).      But 
to   mention   yet   one   point   more,  the   event   as  Bey- 
schlag  interprets  it,    ceases   to   be  a   miracle.      It  is 
reduced  to  simple  magnetism.      Now  beyond  question 
the   author  of  the   fourth   Gospel  believed  that  Jesus 
wrought  a  miracle  on  this  occasion  (John  ii.   1 1 ).     He 
regarded  it  as  a  sign  no  less  than   the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus. 

Quite    different    from    thisLiis  the  view  of  Weiss\ 

I  Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  369-370. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  1 53 

though  perhaps  equally  open  to  criticism.  He  thinks 
that  Jesus  promised  to  help,  believing  that  God 
would  furnish  the  means;  that  Jesus  at  the  time  did 
not  know  whence  the  help  would  come;  that  while  He 
and  the  disciples  waited  in  faith,  the  desired  help 
came  in  an  entirely  unforeseen  though  natural  way. 
This  was  "  an  unquestionable  miracle  of  divine  provi- 
dence," and  in  later  times,  as  the  details  of  the  event 
had  faded  out  of  memory,  it  came  to  appear  like  a 
miracle  of  omnipotence,  and  is  so  reported  in  the 
fourth  Gospel. 

But  we  cannot  accept  this  explanation  as  scien- 
tific. There  is  no.  evidence  that  Jesus  ever  promised 
to  help  those  in  need  while  Himself  ignorant  whence 
the  help  would  come.  On  the  contrary,  we  must 
believe  that  vvhen  God  prompted  Him  to  render 
assistance,  He  at  the  same  time  showed  Him  how  it 
was  to  be  rendered.  Christ  is  never  perplexed  in 
regard  to*means.  His  promise  to  help  is  followed  by 
the  fulfilment  just  as  though  He  clearly  saw  the  fulfil- 
ment when  He  made  the  promise.  The  story  of  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus  illustrates  this  point.  In  the 
hour  when  the  messenger  came  to  Jesus,  He  said, 
"This  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of 
'God,  that  the  Son  of  God  may  be  glorified  thereby  " 
{John  xi.  4).      Now  it  is  evident  from  the  later  narra- 


154  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

tive  (xi.  42)  that  Jesus  was  assured  in  the  very  hour 
when  the  messenger  came  that  God  would  grant  Him 
power  to  raise  Lazarus.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Hfe 
of  Jesus  to  suggest  that  what  was  true  in  this  case 
was  not  also  true  in  all  other  cases. 

Again,  it  is  not  historical  to  say  that  men  who  saw 
Jesus  heal  the  sick  and  raise  the  dead  could,  either  at 
the  time  or  later,  have  regarded  a  merely  providen- 
tial supply  of  wine  as  a  miracle  to  be  placed  by  the 
side  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  If  the  event  was 
what  Weiss  supposes,  then  it  was  not  a  miracle  as 
that  term  is  used  in  the  Gospels;  and  to  call  it  "an 
undoubted  miracle  of  divine  providence  "  is  to  intro- 
duce obscurity  into  the  explanation. 

If,  then,  in  conclusion,  we  accept  the  narrative  as 
historical,  we  must  hold  that  power  was  given  to  Jesus 
to  change  water  into  wine,  an  act  no  more  difficult  of 
explanation  than  any  of  the  miracles,  for  the  inner 
process  is  in  every  case  alike  inexplicable. 

(3)  Significance  of  the  Miracle.  The  evangelist 
treats  the  sign  at  Cana  as  he  does  the  other  miracles 
of  Jesus.  It  is  the  first  of  those  signs  by  which  Christ 
manifested  His  Messianic  character  and  power. 
Herein  was  the  glory  which  the  evangelist  saw.  The 
most  important  thing  was  not  the  change  of  water  into 
wine,  not  this  exercise   of  supernatural   power.      This. 


\     THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  1 55 

was  only  a  sign,  an  index  finger,  which  pointed  to 
the  deep  and  divine  meaning  of  the  event.  So,  in 
the  fourth  Gospel,  the  miracles  of  Jesus  are  always  re- 
garded. The  miracle  itself  is  incidental;  the  primary 
fact  is  behind  the  miracle,  something  personal  and  spir- 
itual. This  spiritual  fact,  the  character  and  purpose  of 
the  Messiah,  was  manifested,  it  is  true,  through  signs, 
but  not  chiefly  on  this  wise.  In  His  grace  and  truth 
also  the  evangelist  beheld  His  glory  (John  i.  14).  The 
zvorks  which  bore  witness  of  Him  were  His  words  as 
well  as  His  miracles  (John  iv.   34;  v.  20;  xvii.  4). 

The  abinidance  of  the  supply  of  wine  -(according  to 
John's  estimate  from  108  to  162  gallons)  and  its  excel- 
lent quality,  like  the  abundant  supply  of  bread  and 
fish  at  another  time  (John  vi.  13)  showed  Jesus  as  the 
hoiuitifid  helper,  as  the  one  who  was  richly  able  to 
provide  for  the  needs  of  men. 

{c)  At  Capernaum.  From  Cana  Jesus  went  down 
to  Capernaum,  some  eighteen  miles  away.  This  town 
was  on  the  northwest  shore  of  Lake  Galilee,  and  prob- 
ably on  the  great  road  from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus, 
but  no  discovery  has  yet  certainly  fixed  its  exact  site, 
though  it  is  probably  to  be  found  either  at  Khan 
Minyeh^  or  at  Tell 'Hum. 

I  See  The  Hist.  Geog.  of  the  Holy  Land,  1895,  by  Geo.  Adam 
Smith.  This  favors  Khan  Minyeh.  So  Selah  Merrill  in  East  of  the 
fordan,   1883, 


156        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

It  is  natural  to  think  that  Jesus  went  to  Caper- 
naum because  several  of  His  disciples  lived  there. 
This  was  the  home  of  John  and  James  (Mark  i.  19- 
20),  and  probably  also  of  Peter  and  Andrew.  We 
know  that  Peter  had  a  home  in  Capernaum  a  few 
months  later  than  this  (Mark  i.  29),  and  we  may  sup- 
pose that.it  was  already  there.  His  native  place  was 
Bethsaida  (John  i.  44).  The  homes  and  friends  of 
these  disciples  would  present  a  favorable  opening  for 
Jesus.  He  might  hope  to  find  other  disciples  among 
the  friends  of  those  whom  He  had  already  won. 

The  fact  that  the  mother  and  brothers  of  Jesus 
went  with  Him  to  Capernaum  may  be  regarded  as  a 
consequence  of  His  miracle  in  Cana.  They  were 
impressed  by  this,  and  wished  to  be  near  Him.  How- 
ever they  do  not  seem  to  have  continued  with  Him 
long,  for  early  in  the  Galilean  ministry,  Mark  tells  us 
that  they  cauie  forth,  i.  c.  from  Nazareth,  to  lay  hold 
on  Him,  thinking  that  He  was  out  of  His  mind  (Mark 
iii.  21,  31).  We  may  suppose  that  they  went  up  to 
the  feast  with  Him,  and  then,  when  He  retired  into 
Judea  without  setting  up  the  Messianic  standard,  they 
returned,  disappointed,  to  their  home  in  Nazareth. 

Jesus  did  not  remain  long  in  Capernaum,  perhaps 
a  week  or  two  (John  ii.  12).  There  is  no  evidence 
that  He  taught  publicly  or  worked  miracles.      We  may 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    MINISTRY.  I  57 

best  think  of  Him  as  quietly  spending  His  time  in  the 
homes  of  His  disciples,  attaching  .them  more  and  more 
closely  to  Himself,  and  awaiting  from  His  Father  a 
signal  for  the  next  step. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 
The  Early  Judean  Ministry. 

(^)  The  Data.  The  data  for  the  early  Judean  min- 
istry of  Jesus  are  all  contained  in  John  ii.  13-iv.  3. 
The  Synoptists  make  no  allusion  to  this  ministry,  not 
even  to  the  cleansing  of  the  temple.  They  are  not 
only  silent  in  regard  to  the  early  Judean  ministry,  but 
their  narratives,  taken  by  themselves,  seem  to  allow 
no  place  for  that  ministry.  They  proceed  from  the 
temptation  to  the  Galilean  ministry  without  suggest- 
ing that  there  was  any  interval  between  them  (Luke 
iv.  14-15;  Matt.  iv.  11-12;  Mark  i.  13-14).  It  may 
perhaps  be  supposed  that  the  Synoptists,  or  those 
from  whom  they  drew,  did  not  have  a  personal  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Judean  ministry.  Matthew  was 
not  yet  a  disciple.  Peter,  from  whom  Mark  derived 
most  of  his  material,  maj/  not  have  been  with  Jesus 
during  this  period,  and  so  may  have  been  silent  about 
it  in  his  preaching.  Then,  in  addition  to  this,  the 
period  seems  to  have  been  devoid  of  Messianic  inci- 
dents and  to  have  been  without  much  permanent  fruit. 

(158) 


THE    EARLY    JUDEAN    MLMSTRY.  I  ^^9 

This  also  may  help  to  explain  the  fact  that  the  Synop- 
tists  pass  over  the  Judean  period  in  silence.  It  may 
.well  be  that  they  put  a  cleansing  of  the  temple  in  the 
last  week  of  the  ministry  of  Jesas  (Mark  xi.  15-17; 
Matt.  xxi.  12-13;  Luke  xix.  45-46)  because  it  was  no 
part  of  their  plan  to  refer  to  the  first  Passover  and  the 
early  Judean  ministry.  The  fact  that  they  mani- 
festly do  not  aim  to  arrange  all  their  material  in 
chronological  order  justifies  us  in  supposing  that 
such  a  transference  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple 
was  possible. 

(^)  First  Public  Act.  During  the  few  weeks  since 
Jesus  left  the  Jordan  with  His  first  disciples  He  had 
not  worked  or  preached  openly.  The  one  sign  which 
He  had  wrought  had  been  wrought  in  a  private  house. 
It  was  fitting  that  His  first  public  act  should  be  in 
Jerusalem  and  in  the  temple,  for  this  was  the  center 
of  the  national  and  religious  life.  This  center,  how- 
ever, was  defiled  both  by  traffic  and  by  the  gross 
deceit  of  the  traffickers  (John  ii.  14-16;  Matt.  xxi.  13). 
The  act  of  Jesus  in  putting  away  this  profanation  from 
the  temple  has  various  aspects  which  are  here  to  be 
noticed. 

(i)  The  act  itself  was  not  a  miracle,  did  not 
transcend  human  power.  We  can  think  of  an  Elijah 
or    an     Isaiah    as    accomplishing    it    in   his    zeal    for 


l60        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Jehovah.  Jesus  knew  that  He  was  right  in  driving 
the  traders  out,  and  knew  that  God  was  with  Him. 
Those  who  were  defihng  the  sacred  place  may  well 
have  had  in  their  secret  heart  some  sense  of  wrong- 
doing. This  sense  would  naturally  be  strengthened 
by  the  outflashing  of  Christ's  righteous  indignation,  and 
by  His  scriptural  condemnation  of  their  doings.  So 
they  quailed  before  the  pure  and  majestic  presence  of 
Jesus,  as  did  the  noisy  mourners  in  the  house  of  Jairus 
at  a  later  day. 

(2)  The  act  of  Jesus  was  in  its  nature  reformatory 
rather  than  Messianic.  There  is  no  suggestion  that 
His  disciples  regarded  it  as  indicating  a  claim  to 
Messianic  authority.  On  the  contrary,  as  they  re- 
flected upon  it,  they  saw  in  it  a  fulfilment  of  Psalm 
Ixix.  9,  "The  zeal  of  thine  house  shall  eat  me  up" 
(John  ii.  17).  They  did  not  see  in  it  a  fulfilment  of 
Mai.  iii.  1-3.  There  is  no  indication  that  any  one 
outside  the  circle  of  disciples  regarded  the  act  as 
Messianic.  All  that  the  more  thoughtful  ones  saw  in 
this,  or  in  the  signs  which  Jesus  did  in  the  next  days, 
was  an  evidence  that  He  had  come  from  God  as  a 
teacher  (John  iii.  2).  The  cleansing  of  the  temple, 
then,  was  simply  reformatory,  and  as  such  was  in  line 
with  Christ's  protests  against  the  evil  practices  of  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  (Matt,  xxiii;  Mark  ii.  23-28,  etc). 


THE    EARLY    JUDEAN    MINISTRY.  l6l 

Hence  the  act  was  not  typical  of  the  work  of  Jesus 
as  a  whole.  For  His  work  was  positive  in  character 
rather  than  negative;  not  the  removal  of  abuses, 
primarily,  but  the  establishment  of  a  divine  kingdom. 

We  may  suppose  that  the  purpose  of  God  in  the 
cleansing  of  the  temple  was  to  call  general  attention 
to  Jesus,  and  to  establish  His  right  to  be  heard  as  a 
prophet  sent  from  heaven. 

(c)  The  Challenge  of  the  Jews.  The  offtcials  ^  came 
to  Jesus  after  He  had  cleansed  the  temple  and  de- 
manded a  sign  in  justification  of  His  bold  act 
(John  ii.  1 8).  The  fact  that  they  did  not  lay  violent 
hands  upon  Him  may  indicate  that  there  was  a  strong 
popular  sympathy  with  the  act  of  Jesus. 

Jesus  replied  to  their  demand  for  a  sign  with  a 
saying  which  neither  they  nor  His  own  disciples 
understood  at  the  time  (John  ii.  19).  "Destroy  this 
temple,"  He  said,  "and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it 
up."  The  officials  thought  that  He  referred  to  the 
great  temple  in  which  they  were  gathered,  and  that 
seems  to  have  been  the  idea  which  people  in  general 
came  to  hold.  Two  years  later,  when  Jesus  was  on 
trial,  false   witnesses   testified   that   He   had  said,   "  I 

1  The  fourth  Gospel  frequently  uses  the  term  the  Jez<.'s  in  a 
narrow  sense,  to  denote  those  Jews  who  were  hostile  toward  Jesus, 
and  hence,  especially,  the  religious  leaders.  Comp.  John  ix.  22.  xi. 
8,  31.  33,  54;   xiii.  33. 

II 


l62        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

am  able  to  destroy  the  temple  of  God  and  to  build  it 
in  three  days"  (Matt.  xxvi.  60-61;  Mark  xiv.  57-58). 
When  Christ  was  on  the  cross,  men  said  to  Him  in 
mockery,  "Ha,  Thou  that  destroyest  the  temple  and 
buildest  it  in  three  days"  (Mark  xv.  29).  Thus  the 
popular  understanding-  of  Christ's  words  was  that  they 
referred  to  the  temple  of  stone. 

Weiss^  and  Beyschla^^  think  that  the  true  meaning 
of  Christ's  words  is  to  be  found  in  this  popular  view, 
and  that  John's  explanation  is  wrong  (John  ii.  21). 
Weiss'  view  is  this:  Jesus  called  upon  the  officials  to 
destroy  the  temple,  as  they  had  already  begun  to  do 
by  various  desecrations  of  it,  and  said  that  He  would 
build  it  again  soon,  meaning  that  He  would  soon 
establish  the  true  temple,  i.  c,  the  Church  of  God. 
Instead  of  the  CJiurcJi  of  God,  Beyschlag  thinks  of 
that  which  Jesus  is  to  build  as  "the  worship  of  God 
in  spirit  and  in  truth."  But  the  text  is  against  this 
explanation,  for  that  identifies  the  temple  which  is 
built  with  that  which  is  destro}^ed.  It  does  not  allow 
us  to  think  of  the  material  temple  in  one  case  and 
that  which  it  symbolized  in  the  other.  Jesus  will 
build  again  ivhat  they  destroy,  and  not  something  else. 

According  to  John,    Jesus   referred   to   His   body. 
He  said,    in   substance,   "You    may  destroy   me,  you 

1  Das  Leben  Jesn,  i.  394. 

2  Das  Lebefi  Jesu.   ii.    148. 


THE  EARLY  JUDEAN  MINISTRY.         1 63 

may  put  me  to  death;  yet  ultimately  I  shall  triumph 
over  you.  My  resurrection  will  be  a  sign  that  I  have 
a  right  to  cleanse  the  temple."  At  a  later  time 
Jesus  gave  to  scribes  and  Pharisees  the  same  answer 
in  different  form  (Matt.  xii.  39-40),  which  helps  to 
confirm  the  correctness  of  John's  interpretation  of  the 
utterance  in  the  temple.  It  is  not  necessary  to  hold 
that  Jesus  saw  at  this  time  that  He  would  be  crucified 
and  rise  again  after  three  days.  But  we  must  suppose 
that  He  had  learned  from  the  Old  Testament  pictures 
of  the  suffering  Messiah,  that  He  was  to  go  through 
great  conflicts  before  He  should  reach  His  throne, 
and  even  that  He  should  be  put  to  death  by  the 
powers  of  the  world  before  He  should  triumph  over 
the  world.  But  He  knew  that  out  of  this  apparent 
•defeat  He  should  speedily  rise  to  assured  dominion. 
It  is  this  general  thought  which  is  contained  in  His 
enigmatic  answer  to  the  challenge  of  the  Jews. 

{d)  Signs  in  Jerusalem.  Jesus  wrought  signs  in 
Jerusalem  on  His  first  visit,  but  we  are  not  told  what 
(John  ii.  23).  It  is  explicitly  stated  that  these  signs 
were  wrought  ''during  the  feast,"  and  this  suggests 
that  Jesus  did  not  prolong  His  ministry  in  Jerusalem 
much,  if  any,  beyond  the  close  of  the  eight  days  of 
the  feast.  The  probable  reason  of  this  lies  in  the  fact 
that,  while  the  signs  of  Jesus  made  a  deep  impression, 


164        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

His  teaching  of  the  kingdom  did  not  reach  the  hearts 
of  the  people.  In  Jerusalem,  more  than  elsewhere, 
men  were  under  the  dominion  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  and  there  was  less  receptivity  for  spiritual 
truths.  A  deep-seated  hatred  toward  Jesus  had  been 
created  in  the  hearts  of  the  leaders  by  the  cleansing 
of  the  temple,  and  their  sentiment  was  so  positive 
and  well  known  that  Nicodemus  dared  not  visit  Jesus 
openly,  but  came  by  night. 

Nicodemus  was  one  of  the  few  in  whom  the  words 
and  deeds  of  jesus  had  awakened  a  desire  to  know 
more  about  Him.  He  was  not  wholly  alone  in  recog- 
nizing Jesus  as  a  divinely  sent  teacher,  for  he  says 
''We  know,"  which  implies  that  there  were  others 
who  had  at  least  a  deep  respect  for  Jesus.  The  con- 
versation with  Nicodemus  is  important  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  for  the  following  reasons:  (i)  It  shows  that 
Jesus  at  the  very  beginning  of  His  ministry  insisted 
on  the  necessity  of  a  new  heart  in  the  case  of  every 
one  who  would  enter  His  kingdom.  Descent  from 
Abraham  would  not  secure  admission  to  that  king- 
dom, as  was  commonly  supposed;  indeed,  it  was  of 
no  value  whatever  in  this  respect  (John  iii.  3).  Strict 
observance  of  the  law,  such  as  Nicodemus  had  doubt- 
less practiced,  did  not  remove  the  necessity  of  this 
change.      This   newness    of  heart,    or  radical   inward 


THE    EARLY    JUDEAN    MINISTRY.  1 65 

change,  consists,  according  to  Jesus,  of  two  elements 
(John  iii.  5),  the  putting  away  of  sin,  which  is  sym- 
bolized by  the  birth  out  of  %vatcr\  or  water-baptism\ 
and  consecration  to  God,  which  is  symbohzed  by 
h\x\.\\froiii  the  Spii'it,  or  Spirit-baptism.  It  contains, 
therefore,  no  idea  which  is  not  involved  in  Jesus' 
conception  of  believing  in  Him,  for  to  believe  Him  is 
to  receive  Him  as  Messiah,  and  this  involves,  among 
other  things,  a  turning  from  sin  and  a  consecration  to 
God.  (2)  It  shows  that  Jesus  at  the  beginning  of 
His  ministry  was  sure  of  ultimate  victory.  He  was 
certain  that  men  were  to  have  life  eternal  through 
Him,  all  men  who  should  believe.  Whether  we 
understand  the  being  "  lifted  up"  as  an  allusion  to  the 
cross,  or  as  a  reference  to  the  Messianic  throne'',  it 
means  victory  for  those  who  trust  in  Him.  (3)  The 
conversation  with  Nicodemus  shows  that  Jesus  from 
the  first  of  His  ministry  felt  that  His  mission  was  to 
manifest  the  love  of  God  (John  iii.  16).  Therefore 
He  could  not  meet  the  expectation  of  the  people, 
shared  even  by  the  Baptist  (Matt.  iii.  11-12),  that 
the  Messiah  would  judge  the  world  immediately  after 
His    appearance^      Judgment  would  not   have  mani- 

1  Comp.  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  262. 

2  Comp.    Erich    Haupt,    Die    alttestamentlichen    Citate,    etc., 
pages  174-182. 

3  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  dcs  Talrnuds,  pp.  347-354 


l66        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

fested  the  love  of  God  for  sinners,  and  had  Jesus 
instituted  a  judgment,  He  could  not  have  -saved  that 
which  was  lost.  (4)  The  conversation  with  Nicode- 
mus  shows  that  Jesus  at  the  beginning  of  His  minis- 
try, at  least  on  some  occasions,  taught  the  supreme 
importance  of  His  person  in  salvation.  According  to 
the  Synoptists,  Jesus  studiously  avoided  Messianic 
claims  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  that  is,  ver- 
bal claims  publicly  made.  He  spoke  and  acted  like 
the  Messiah,  but  left  men  to  draw  the  inference  for 
themselves.  Even  in  private  He  did  not  explicitly 
claim  Messiahship.  The  impression  given  by  the 
Synoptists  is  modified  by  John,  as  the  conversation 
with  Nicodemus  shows. 

The  importance  of  personal  faith  in  Jesus,  as  far 
as  this  narrative  goes,  rests  on  the  fact  that  He  is  the 
Messiah,  This  is  the  central  idea  of  the  term  Son  of 
man^  (John  iii.  13),  and  also  of  the  term  Son  of  God 
(John  iii.  18).  The  former  term  is  the  most  common 
self-designation  of  Jesus.  Its  Messianic  import  is 
inferred,  first,  from  the  probable  fact  that  it  is  based 
on  the  Messianic  passage  in  Daniel  vii.  1 1 ;  second, 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  closely  associated  by  Jesus 
with  His  specific  work  as  Messiah  {e.  g.,  Mark  ii.   10, 

I  Comp.  Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pages  77  and  84. 
Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  ii.  434.  Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrhiiyidert  des  Heils, 
ii    292. 


THE    EARLY    JUDEAN    MINISTRY.  1 6/ 

28;  viii.  31;  xiii.  26);  and  third,  from  the  probabihty 
(antecedent)  that  Jesus,  as  conscious  of  Messiahship, 
would  not  adopt  or  coin  a  self-designation,  which  was 
to  be  His  one  peculiar  name,  which  did  not  recognize 
His  Messianic  character. 

As  to  the  other  term.  Son  of  God  fjohn  i.  49;  .x. 
36;  xi.  4,  27;  XX.  31;  Mark  iii.  11;  v.  7;  Luke  iv, 
41;  Matt.  xiv.  33),  varying  v/ith  Son  or  only  begotten 
Son  (John  iii.  16-18;  Mark  i.  11;  ix.  7),  the  words 
of  Jesus  seem  to  put  it  beyond  question  that  He 
used  it  as  synonymous  with  Messiah.  In  John  x. 
36,  Jesus  justifies  His  claim  to  call  Himself  the  Son 
of  God  by  the  fact  that  the  Father  had  eonseerated 
Him  and  sent  Him  into  the  world.  This  consecra- 
tion by  the  Father  can  be  found  nowhere  else 
than  in  the  event  recorded  by  all  the  evangelists, 
namely,  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  Jesus  in 
the  hour  of  His  baptism  (Mark  i.  lO-i  i).  The  being 
sent  into  tlie  zvorld,  which  followed  the  consecration 
(John  vi.  27),  a  term  which  Jesus  used  of  the  mission 
of  His  disciples  no  less  than  of  His  own  (John  xvii. 
18),  cannot  mean  a  change  of  worlds,  but  simply  the 
change  from  the  quiet  life  of  a  private  citizen  in  Naza- 
reth to  the  public  career  of  the  Messiah.  Therefore 
the  term  Son  of  God  in  John  x.  36  is  plainly  equal  to 
Messiah.      In  the  other  passage  where   Jesus  uses  the 


1 68        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

term,  John  xi.  4,  it  manifestly  has  the  same  sense. 
Jesus  said  that  the  sickness  of  Lazarus  was  in  order 
that  the  Sou  of  God  might  be  glorified.  But  how 
was  He  to  be  glorified.'  This  is  seen  from  the  prayer 
at  the  tomb  (John  xi.  41-42).  Jesus  says  that  the 
object  of  His  audible  utterance  was  that  the  people 
might  believe  that  God  had  sejit  Him,  i.  c. ,  that  He  was 
the  Messiah.  It  is  thus  that  the  Son  of  God  is  glori- 
fied, when  men  believe  that  He  is  the  Messiah.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  Sou  of  God  is  a  Messianic  title. 
This  use  of  the  term  Son  of  God  is  natural  in  view 
of  the  Second  Psalm,  where  Jehovah  is  represented 
as  saying  to  the  Messianic  King,  "Thou  art  my 
Son.''  But  as  Jesus  used  the  term  synonymously 
with  Messiah,  so  also  did  the  demonized  (Luke  iv. 
41)  and  the  high  priest  (Mark  xiv.  61;  Matt.  xxvi. 
63).  This  seems  to  have  been  the  recognized  mean- 
ing of  the  term  among  the  Jews  of  that  day.  Thus 
Martha  says,  "I  have  believed  that  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  even  He  that  cometh  into  the 
world  "  (John  xi.  27),  and  the  evangelist  writes  his 
Gospel  that  men  may  believe  that  "Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God"  (John  xx.  31).  The  central 
idea  of  both  terms,  then,  is  Messiahship;  but  we  may 
perhaps  say  that  one  term  defines  it  rather  in  its  rela- 
tion to  man,  the  other  in  its  relation  to  God. 


THE    EARLY    JUDEAN    MINISTRY.  1 69 

Jesus  as  the  Messiah  has  a  unique  knowledge  of  the 
will  of  God,  which  fact  alone  would  make  a  man's 
relation  to  Him  a  matter  of  vital  importance.  This 
unique  knowledge  of  the  Father  is  the  claim  of  the 
figurative  words  to  Nicodemus  (John  iii.  13),  ' '  No  man 
hath  ascended  into  heaven  but  he  that  hath  descended 
out  of  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man."  The  coming  down 
out  of  heaven  must  surely  be  a  fact  of  the  same  sort 
as  the  ascending  into  heaven,  and  the  only  sense  in 
which  Jesus  had  at  that  time  ascended  into  heaven 
was  a  spiritual  one.  He  had  had  perfect  fellowship 
with  God.  He  spoke  the  things  which  He  had  seen  and 
heard  with  the  Father  (John  v.  19,  30).  So  when  He 
declared  to  Nicodemus  the  "heavenly  things,"  that  is 
the  Messianic  truths.  He  did  so  on  the  highest  possi- 
ble authority.  If  Nicodemus,  or  any  one,  accepts 
these  Messianic  truths,  it  must  be  on  the  testimony  of 
Jesus,  for  He  alone  is  in  perfect  fellowship  with  God 
and  competent  to  reveal  Him. 

The  importance,  then,  of  a  right  personal  relation 
to  Jesus  is  all  gathered  up  in  the  fact  that  He  is  the 
Messiah,  and  because  He  is  the  Messiah,  He  is  God's 
appointed  way  of  helping  man.  He  is  the  expression 
of  God's  love  and  the  way  to  His  favor  (John  iii.   16). 

{e)  Work  of  Preparation,  (i)  Time  and  Place. 
The  short  period  of  work  in  Jerusalem,  in  which  Jesus 


I70  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

made  a  salutary  impression  on  at  least  one  soul  (John 
xix.  39),  was  followed  by  a  long  period  of  semi- 
activity  in  Judea,  of  which  we  have  but  a  meager 
account.  This  period  continued  about  eight  months, 
as  has  already  been  shown.  Of  the  place  or  places 
where  Jesus  tarried  during  these  months,  we  have  no 
certain  knowledge.  We  only  know  that  He  was  in 
Judea.  John  was  still  baptizing,  now  at  Aenon  near 
Salim  (John  iii.  23),  but  it  is  not  known  where  Aenon 
was,  though  the  language  of  John  iii.  26  seems  to 
favor  the  view  that  it  was  east  of  the  Jordan. 
Weiss^  thinks  it  was  in  Galilee  or  Perea.  Eder- 
sheim,^  following  an  old  tradition,  puts  it  in  the 
northeast  of  Judea,  not  far  from  Scythopolis.  Others 
have  placed  it  far  away  in  southern  Judea.  It  is 
probable  that  it  was  in  or  near  the  territory  of  Herod 
Antipas,for  he  arrested  John  soon  after  the  close  of 
this  period  of  eight  months,  and  the  jurisdiction  of 
Antipas  was  over  Galilee  and  Perea,  not  over  Judea. 
If  then  the  Baptist  was  near  the  border  of  Herod's 
domain,  it  is  probable  that  Jesus  was  not  far  away. 

(2)  Baptism  by  the  Disciples  of  Jesus.  The  nar- 
rative in  John  implies  that  baptism  by  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  was  not  different  from  John's  baptism.      It  was, 

1  Das  Leben  Jesu,  i.  408. 

2  Life  and    Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  i.  393. 


THE  EARLY  JUDEAN  MINISTRY.         I7I 

accordingly,  a  baptism  of  repentance  unto  remission 
of  sins.  Christian  baptism  at  this  time,  before  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  been  given,  was  of  course  impossible. 
If  the  baptism  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus  performed 
under  His  direction  was  the  same  as  John's  baptism, 
we  must  regard  the  work  of  Jesus  at  this  time  as  a 
work  of  preparation.  He  was  making  straight  His 
own  paths  (Mark  i.  3).  His  recent  experience  in 
Jerusalem  had  shown  Him  the  need  of  this. 

The  success  of  this  preparatory  work,  if  we  may 
j;idge  from  the  numbers  who  came  to  His  baptism, 
was  very  great.  The  movement  of  people  to  Him 
became  greater  than  that  to  John  (John  iii.  26). 
What  the  real  spiritual  result  of  the  work  was  can  not 
be  said.  Yet  it  may  not  be  too  much  to  suppose  that 
the  Church  which  Jesus  left  in  Jerusalem  when  He 
ascended  on  high  owed  some  of  its  members  to  this 
preparatory  work. 

Just  what  part  Jesus  took  in  this  work  does  not 
appear.  It  is  certain  that  He  did  not  personally 
administer  baptism.  Had  He  done  so,  it  might  have 
given  the  impression  that  He  regarded  Himself  as  a 
second  John  the  Baptist.  Then,  as  the  forerunner 
had  said  (Mark  i.  8),  Christ's  baptism  would  be  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  time  for  that  had  not  yet 
come. 


1/2        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

It  i3  probable  that  Jesus  taught  the  people  regard- 
ing the  coming  kingdom,  but  without  making  such 
disclosures  concerning  Himself  as  He  had  made  to 
Nicodemus. 

It  is  significant  that  Jesus,  even  after  His  baptism 
with  the  Spirit  for  Messianic  work,  had  this  time  of 
waiting.  It  can  not  well  have  been  other  than  a  time 
of  trial  for  Him.  He  knew  that  He  was  the  Messiah, 
and  yet  He  must  turn  aside  from  the  Messianic  pro- 
clamation of  the  kingdom  and  direct  His  disciples 
while  they  performed  a  merely  preparatory  work. 


CHAPTER     IX. 

Two  Days  in  Sychar. 

(a)  Departure  from  Judea.  According  to  John  iv. 
I,  Jesus  left  Judea  because  the  Pharisees  were  taking 
cognizance  of  His  work.  They  had  heard  that  He 
was  more  successful  than  the  Baptist.  It  seems  prob- 
able that  Jesus  apprehended  hostility  from  the  Phari- 
sees, and  so  thought  best  to  change  the  scene  of  His 
work.  When  Jesus  left  Judea,  the  Baptist  was  still 
at  liberty. 

The  Synoptists  do  not  wholly  agree  with  this  state- 
ment. Mark  says  that  after  John  had  been  cast  into 
prison,  Jesus  came  into  Galilee  (Mark  i.  14).  He 
does  not  affirm  that  Jesus  returned  to  Galilee  because 
John  had  been  seized,  but  only  that  the  return  of 
]es>ns  follozved  the  seizure  of  John.  Neither  does  he 
say  that  the  Baptist  was  imprisoned  before  Jesus  left 
Judea.  He  knows-nothing  about  the  Judean  ministry, 
or  at  least  makes  no  allusion  to  it.  His  one  point  is 
that  the  work   of  the  forerunner  was  finished  before 

Jesus   began  to  proclaim  in  Galilee   the    kingdom  of 

(173) 


1/4  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

God.  And  John's  language  does  not  really  conflict 
with  this.  He  only  says  that  the  Baptist  was  at  lib- 
erty when  Jesus  left  Judea;  but  he  may  have  been 
arrested  the  next  day.  We  know  nothing  to  the  con- 
trary. 

Matthew  says  that  when  Jesus  heard  of  John's 
imprisonment.  He  withdrew  into  Galilee  (Matt.  iv. 
12).  He  also  makes  no  allusion  to  the  Judean  minis- 
try, but  passes  at  once  from  the  temptation  to  the 
Galilean  preaching.  But  while  Matthew  does  not 
speak  of  a  withdrawal  from  Jiidca  into  Galilee,  he 
does  seem  to  make  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist 
the  reason  wjiy  Jesus  went  into  Galilee.  In  this  point 
he  conflicts  with  John,  but  his  main  thought  may 
have  been  that  the  work  of  the  Baptist  was  ended 
before  the  Galilean  work  'of  Jesus  began,  and  this  is 
not  necessarily  at  variance  with  John.  While  then 
we  must  accept  John's  statement  that  the  Baptist  was 
at  liberty  when  Jesus  left  Judea,  and  that  Jesus  left 
because  the  Pharisees  were  watching  Him,  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  our  supposing  that  the  Baptist  was 
arrested  immediately  after  the  departure  of  Jesus. 
Indeed  the  fourth  Gospel  itself  favors  this  view.  For 
about  three  months  after  Jesus  left  Judea,  He  came 
again  to  Jerusalem,  and  at  that  time  He  referred  to  the 
Baptist's  work  as  a  thing  of  the  past  (John  v.  33-35). 


TWO    DAYS    IN    SVCHAR.  1/5 

(/;)  At  Jacob's  Well  and  Sychar.      Jesus  left  Judea 
by  the  road  which  led  through  Samaria,  just  as  in  the 
followint^   year   He  took   the   Samaritan    route  when 
coming-  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (Luke  ix.  52).      He 
did  not  share  the  Jewish  prejudice  against  the  Samar- 
itans, and  according  to  Josephus\    the   Galileans  as  a 
rule  were  so  free  from  this  prejudice  that  they  trav- 
eled through  Samaria  without  scruples.      About  noon 
He  reached  Jacob's  well,  probably  the  same  that  has 
borne   that   name   since   the    fourth    century.       It    is 
located  near  the  foot  of  Mt.  Gerizim.      The  neighbor- 
ing town   of   Sychar,    to   which  the   disciples  went  to 
buy  food,  is  now  believed  to  have  occupied  the  site  of 
the  modern   'Asker,  twenty-three  minutes'  walk  east- 
ward from  Nablous.      'Asker  is  about  three-quarters  of 
a  mile  from  the  well.      It   appears  that   Jesus  did  not 
expect  to  stop  in  Samaria,  for  He  did  not  turn  aside 
from  the  highway  to  the  town,  but  sent  His  disciples 
to  procure  food       So  the  welcome  which  He  received 
from  the   Samaritans  was  wholly  a  providential  sur- 
prise. 

The  conversation  with  the  Samaritan  woman  is 
important  in  the  history  of  Christ's  life  for  these  rea- 
sons: (i)  It  shows  that  Jesus,  unlike  the  religious 
teachers  of  the  time,  was  free  from  prejudice  against 

I  AniiquiVi'es,  xx.  6.  i. 


176        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Samaritans  and  women.  While  the  Pharisees  thought 
that  all  Samaritans  were  possessed  by  demons  (John 
viii.  48),  Jesus  mingled  freely  with  them;  and  while 
His  own  disciples  marvelled  that  He  spoke  with  a 
woman  (John  iv.  27),  He  seems  to-have  done  so  with- 
out the  slightest  scruple.  He  not  only  mingled  with 
Samaritans,  but  when  He  wished  to  teach  the  duty  of 
neighborliness,  He  chose  a  Samaritan  to  illustrate  this 
virtue  (Luke  x.  33).  His  disciples  marvelled  that  He 
talked  with  a  woman  in  public  because  they  had  been 
taught  that  such  an  act  was  unbecoming  to  a  rabbi,  if 
not  to  any  respectable  man.  The  rabbis  held  that  a 
man  should  not  talk  with  a  woman  in  the  street,  not 
even  with  his  own  wife\  But  Jesus  was  free  from  the 
influence  of  the  scribes,  and  ranked  womanhood  as 
high  as  manhood.  In  offering  His  salvation,  He  made 
no  distinction  between  male  and  female.  His  first 
full  disclosure  regarding  Himself  was  made  to  a 
woman.  Women  accompanied  Him  when  He  finally 
left  Galilee,  and  He  allowed  them  to  minister  unto 
Him  (Matt,  xxvii.  55).  His  first  two  appearances 
after  He  rose  from  the  dead  were  to  women  (Matt. 
xxviii.  9;  John  xx.  16).  Thus  His  treatment  of 
woman   laid   the   foundation   for  the   full   recognition 

I   See  Lightfoot,  Horae  Hebraicae,   iii.   287;   Stapfer,  Palestine 
iyi  the  Time  of  Christ,  p.  150. 


TWO    DAYS    IN    SYCHAR.  1 77 

and  development  of  womanhood  among  His  disciples. 

(2)  The  conversation  with  the  woman,  as  also  the 
account  of  the  sojourn  in  Sychar,  shows  that  Jesus 
wrought  no  miracle  where  He  could  lead  souls  to  God 
by  His  word.  Here  in  Samaria  He  had  greater  suc- 
cess than   previously,    and  yet   He  wrought  no   sign. 

(3)  The   conversation   with   the   woman  at   the   well, 

like  the  earlier  experience  at  the  Jordan,  shows  that 

supernatural  knowledge  was  granted  to  Jesus  for  the 

needs  of  His  Messianic  work.      It  can  not  be  supposed 

that    He  read   in   the   woman's   face    the    fact   of   her 

having  been   married  exactly /tv  times,  and  that  she 

was  now  living  in  unlawful  relation  with  a  man.      He 

knew   these   things   only   by  the  gift   of   God    at   the 

moment.       (4)     This  conversation   shows    that    fesus 

anticipated   the   doing   away  of   the   old   economy  by 

means  of  His  teaching  and  work.      He  declared  the 

approach   of   an   hour   when    worship   of   the    Father 

would  not  be  bound,  for  the  Samaritans,  to  Gerizim, 

nor  for  the  Jews,  to  Jerusalem  (John  iv.  21).     But  the 

coming  of   such   an   hour  would  necessarily  bring  the 

abrogation  of  the  priesthood  and   of   sacrifices,    /.  t\, 

the    abrogation    of    the    entire    old    economy.       This 

thought  is  contained  implicitly  in  the   Synoptic  word 

of  Jesus,    that   He   came   to  _/>///?/  ///r  laic  fMatt.    v. 

17).      Since   His   fulfilment  of  the    spiritual    teaching 
12 


178        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

of  the  law  by  a  living  embodiment  of  the  ideal  con- 
tained in  the  Old  Testament  was  vastly  more  vital 
and  forcible  than  the  ceremonial  fulfilment,  to  which 
Jews  had  hitherto  been  -bound,  it  was  sure  to  take 
precedence  of  that  formal  fulfilment  in  a  church  that 
was  taught  by  His  Spirit.  This  was  Jesus'  method  of 
emancipating  His  disciples  from  the  law.  It  is  the 
method  of  life,  not  of  outward  statute.  The  force  of 
His  life  was  to  bring  a  gradual  and  natural  deliverance 
from  the  law,  as  the  pressure  of  life  in  the  branches 
and  twigs  of  trees  in  the  spring  pushes  off  the  old 
leaves,  whose  mission  is  ended.  And  such  was  indeed 
the  -case  in  the  early  Jewish-Christian  church.  (5) 
Once  more,  this  conversation  shows,  like  that  with 
Nicodemus,  that  Jesus  from  the  beginning  of  His  min- 
istry, when  the  occasion  was  fitting,  declared  Himself 
to  be  the  Messiah  (John  iv.  26).  Here  among  the 
Samaritans,  He  might  the  more  freely  do  so  because 
the  Samaritan  conception  of  the  Messiah  seems  not  to 
have  been  political,  as  was  the  Jewish  (John  iv.  25), 
and  the  Samaritans  were  entirely  isolated  from  the 
Jews,  so  that  His  announcement  of  Himself  lamong  the 
Samaritans  would  have  no  influence  upon  His  further 
work  among  the  Jews.  Like  the  conversation  with 
Nicodemus,  this  conversation  with  the  Samaritan 
woman  shows  that  Jesus'  consciousness  of  Messiahship 


TWO    DAYS    IN    SYCHAR.  1/9 

was  not  a  gradual  development,  as  some  have  thought, 
but  was  as  clear  and  positive  at  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry  as  at  its  end. 

The  sojourn  in  'Asker  was  a  time  of  seed-sowing 
and  also  of  harvest.  The  villagers  who  had  confi- 
dence enough  in  the  woman's  word  to  go  forth  where 
Jesus  was,  besought  Him  to  abide  with  them.  They 
must  have  recognized  iHim  to  be  a  Jew,  as  the  woman 
had  (John  iv.  9),  but  their  regard  for  the  prophet  was 
stronger  than  their  prejudice  against  the  Jew.  Many 
heard  His  word  and  believed  that  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah. As  He  had  revealed  Himself  to  the  Samaritan 
woman,  so  we  must  suppose  that  He  did  to  those 
villagers  who  were  drawn  to  Him.  He  trusted  Him- 
self to  these  half-Gentiles  as  He  had  refused  to  trust 
Himself  to  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  a  few  months  before 
(John  ii.  24).  Yet  it  was  not  God's  purpose  that 
Jesus  should  prosecute  this  Samaritan  mission.  After 
two  days  He  continued  His  journey  into  Galilee,  and 
did  not  again  in  person  preach  the  kingdom  to 
Samaritan  hearers.  When  He  sent  out  His  disciples 
on  their  first  mission.  He  forbade  their  entering 
Samaria  (Matt.  x.  5).  Their  work  was  at  home,  as 
was  His.  The  children  must  first  be  fed.  When 
that  had  at  last  been  done,  the  Gospel  was  sent  freely 
to  Samaritan  and  Gentile  (Acts  i.  8;   viii.  4-8). 


CHAPTER    X. 

The   Galilean  Ministry:  First  Part. 

((t)  General  View.  The  Messianic  character  of 
Jesus  began  to  manifest  itself  as  soon  as  He  came 
forth  from  His. temptation  in  the  wilderness,  but  not 
until  He  came  into  Galilee,  about  December  of  the 
first  year,  did  He  enter  on  continuous  public  Messi- 
anic work.  The  baptism  of  preparation  which  His 
disciples  had  been  administering  in  judea  is  now 
dropped,  never  to  be  resumed.  Instead  of  isolated 
miracles,  as  in  the  previous  eight  months,  the  Gali- 
lean ministry,  especially  the  first  part,  is  rich  in  them. 
Now  for  the  first  time  Jesus  appears  in  the  s\'nagogue, 
and  in  the  midst  of  great  throngs  in  the  open  country, 
as  a  teacher  and  preacher  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
He  makes  His  headquarters  in  the  most  thickly  settled 
portion  of  Galilee,  in  the  town  of  Capernaum.  From 
this  center  He  makes  several  tours  throughout  the 
province,  and  once  at  least  appears  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  lake.  During  the  period  of  some  three  months 
He   is   forming  a  circle  of  disciples,  twelve  of  whom, 

(i8o) 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  l8[ 

at  the  close  of  the  period,  He  sends  forth  to  announce 
Him  far  and  near  through  the  province.  But  in  this 
period,  for  the  most  part  also  in  the  subsequent  ones, 
we  cannot  follow  Jesus  from  place  to  place,  or  trace 
His  life  from  day  to  day.  There  are  no  data  for  such 
a  narrative.  We  can  only  present  certain  great 
features  of  the  period,  those  salient  facts  which  have 
been  preserved  in  our  Gospels. 

{b)  The  Teaching  of  Jesus.  Here  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Galilean  ministry,  when  Jesus  at  last  enters  on 
continuous  work  as  a  teacher,  it  will  be  in  place  to 
glance  at  His  teaching  as  a  whole.  It  would  be  foreign 
'to  the  present  purpose  to  enter  into  a  detailed  study 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  That  requires  a  volume  by 
itself.  All  we  seek  is  to  give  a  brief  survey  that  will 
not  too  long  interrupt  the  study  of  His  life. 

(I )  Place  of  Teaching.  When  in  Jerusalem  it  was 
Christ's  practice  to  teach  in  the  courts  of  the  temple' 
(Matt.  xxi.  23;  John  x.  23,  etc.).  There  is  no  record 
of  His  having  taught  in  any  of  the  four  hundred 
synagogues,  which  are  said  to  have  existed  in  Jerusa- 
lem in  His  day.  But  in  Galilee  it  was  His  custom  to 
teach  in  the  synagogue  (Mark  i.  39;  Matt.  iv.  23;  ix. 
35,  etc.).      We  learn  from   Luke's  description  of  the 

I  Against  the  existence  of  a  synagogue  in  the  temple,  see  Eder- 
sheim,  Lj/c  and  Titnes  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  ii.  742-74^. 


1 82  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

scene  in  Nazareth  that  Jesus  stood  to  read  the  Script- 
ures (Luke  iv.  i6,  20);  and  from  this  and  other  pas- 
sages, that  He  sat  while  speaking  upon  that  which  He 
had  read  (Matt.  xiii.  i;  xv.  29;  John  vi.  3;  viii.  2). 
He  allowed  questions  to  be  asked  (Matt.  xii.  9-10), 
and  John  describes  an  occasion  when  a  lengthy  dia- 
logue took  place  between  Him  and  those  present  in 
the  synagogue  (John  vi.  25-59).  But  although  it  was 
Christ's  custom  in  Galilee  to  teach  in  the  synagogue, 
no  synagogue-address  has  been  preserved,  excepting 
that  in  John  vi.  The  teaching  recorded  is  almost 
entirely  that  which  took  place  in  the  open  air.  It 
was  here  only  that  large  audiences  could  hear  Him. 
It  seems  probable  that  the  synagogue-teaching 
belonged  especially  to  the  initial  part  of  His  w^ork  in 
Galilee,  and  that  later  on  as  the  hostility  of  the 
rabbis  increased,  and  as  crowds  too  large  for  the 
synagogues  thronged  Him,  His  teaching  was  more  and 
more  in  the  open  air.  Public  teaching  and  working 
miracles  seem  to  have  been  wellnigh  continuous  in 
the  Galilean  ministry  until  the  opposition  led  Jesus  to 
withdraw  with  a  small  band  of  disciples,  and  to  devote 
Himself  largely  to  them.  But  before  this  He  seems 
to  have  been  active  in  teaching  and  healing  every  day. 
When  enthusiasm  for  Him  as  a  worker  of  miracles 
ran  so  high  that  He  desired  to  escape  from  the  throngs, 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  1 83 

and  went  into  desert  regions,  even  there  He  was  sur- 
rounded by  crowds  and  was  constantly  active  (Mark 
i.  45).  Sometimes  He  was  so  pressed  that  He  had 
not  time  to  eat  bread  (Mark  iii.  20). 

(2)  Form  of  Teaching.  It  was  noticed  at  once 
that  Jesus  did  not  teach  like  the  scribes  (Mark  i.  22). 
Instead  of  endless  references  to  dry  tradition,  He 
spoke  out  of  His  own  full  heart,  and  hence  He  seemed 
to  His  hearers  to  have  authority.  The  scribe  said 
over  what  some  scribe  of  the  past  had  said.  His 
teaching  was  mechanical.  The  highest  praise  for  a 
scribe  was  that  he  resembled  a  cemented  cistern 
which  lost  no  drop  of  the  water  put  into  it.  He  was 
bound  never  to  teach  otherwise  than  as  he  had  been 
taught/  Christ  as  a  teacher  was  not  a  cistern,  but  a 
spring,  clear,  abundant,  and  perennial. 

The  form  of  Christ's  teaching  was  eminently  popu- 
lar. His  addresses  had  this  quality  because,  in  the  first 
place,  they  were  concrete,  never  abstract.  He  does  not 
speak  of  the  sunimuni  bonuni,  but  of  the  pearl  of  great 
price.  He  does  not  speak  of  providence,  but  says  that 
the  hairs  of  our  heads  are  all  numbered.  He  does  not 
speak  of  the  divine  attribute  of  love,  but  pictures  a  father 
embracing  his  lost  son,  and  covering  him  with  kisses. 
Instead  of   speaking   of   divine   beneficence.    He  says 

I   Schiirer,  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichie,  ii.  265. 


184  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

that  God  sends  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust. 
A^ain,  Christ's  words  were  lar^eh'  proverbial  in  char- 
acter, and  hence  easily  remembered.  He  did  not 
formally  develop  the  truths  that  He  presented,  but 
He  gave  rather  a  series  of  short,  pointed  sayings,  each 
of  which  had  a  certain  completeness  in  itself.  The 
logical  relation  of  these  sentences  to  each  other  must 
often  be  learned  from  the  general  theme.  These 
proverb-like  sayings  of  Jesus  are  akin,  in  form,  to 
the  wisdom-literature  of  the  Old  Testament.  They 
abound  in  parallelisms,  by  which  they  fix  themselves 
in  the  memory  more  readily  (Matt.  x.  24,  27,  32-33, 
etc.).  It  is  characteristic  of  the  proverb  that  while  it 
presents  thought  in  a  pointed  way,  it  presents  only 
one  phase  of  a  truth.  Thus  Jesus  says,  "Everyone 
that  asketh  receiveth"  (Matt.  vii.  8).  Taken  by  itself, 
this  gives  a  very  imperfect  idea  of  Christ's  thought 
regarding  prayer.  It  makes  no  reference  to  the  con- 
ditions of  prayer;  it  also  passes  over  the  exceptions  to 
the  rule  that  what  is  asked  is  granted.  Hence  it 
is  important  in  the  interpretation  of  these  sayings  of 
Jesus,  to  study  the  separate  saying  in  the  light  of  the 
whole. 

In  the  third  place,  Christ's  words  were  largely 
symbolic.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  those  which 
are  found  in   the   fourth    Gospel,  though  true   also  of 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  1 85 

the  Syiioptists,  The  symbols  used  by  Jesus  were 
■drawn  from  common  Hfe  and  from  the  outer  world. 
Take,  for  example,  the  seventh  chapter  of  Matthew. 
It  contains  these  symbols:  the  mote  in  the  eye,  the 
dog-,  the  swine,  knocking  at  the  door,  the  narrow 
gate,  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing,  good  tree  good  fruit, 
house  on  the  rock,  house  on  the  sand.  These  were 
all  easily  intelligible,  and  needed  no  explanation. 

Finally,  Christ's  teaching  was  to  some  extent  in 
f^arables.  About  thirty  of  these  have  been  preserved 
by  the  Synoptists.  The  parable  is  a  fictitious  story, 
but  one  that  might  be  from  life.  It  is  based  on  the 
analogy  which  exists  between  the  visible  and  the 
invisible  world.  The  parable  has  a  double  meaning, 
a  meaning  on  its  surface  and  a  meaning  beneath  its 
surface.  It  was  an  attempt  to  draw  men  gently  along 
to  think  of  the  truth  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  to 
put  that  truth  in  a  portable  form.  The  parables  of 
Jesus  are  so  finished  in  form  as  to  suggest  that  they 
were  not  extemporaneous  productions,  but  carefully 
thought  out  and  wrought  out  by  Jesus  before  they  were 
•spoken.^ 

These  are  some  of  the  literary  characteristics  of 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  that  made  it  singularly  attractive. 
Of  course  the  personality  of  the  speaker — the  gentle- 

I   Comp.  Delitzsch,  Ki)i  Tag  in  Caperyiaiiyn,  p.  87. 


1 86  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

ness  and  grace  of  His  manner,  the  love  that  spoke 
from  His  eyes,  the  sympathy  that  expressed  itself  in 
His  voice — this  personality  was  far  greater  than  the 
spoken  word,  and  may  well  have  made  a  more  abid- 
ing impression. 

(3)  Content  of  TcacJiing.  The  Synoptists  begin 
their  narratives  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus  with 
the  statement  that  He  came  into  Galilee  preaching 
the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom  (Mark  i.  14-15J,  and  at 
the  close  of  His  ministry,  when  He  was  before  Pilate, 
He  admitted  that  He  was  a  king  and  spoke  of  His 
kingdom  (John  xviii.  36-37).  So  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  and  the  King  of  that  kingdom  were  the  two- 
fold theme  of  His  teaching.  The  first  part  of  this 
theme  was  more  prominent  at  the  beginning,  the 
second  part  more  prominent  at  the  close,  of  His 
ministry.  His  teaching  on  the  first  was  to  all  kinds 
of  hearers;  His  teaching  on  the  latter  was  confined 
more  especially  to  His  own  disciples.  His  teaching 
on  the  first  part  of  the  theme  is  prominent  in  the 
Synoptists;  His  teaching  on  the  second  part  is  promi- 
nent in  John. 

Jesus  does  not  define  the  term  kingdom  of  heaven. 
It  is  taken  for  granted  that  His  hearers  are  familiar 
with  the  conception,  and  therefore  Jesus  must  have 
been   conscious   of  using  the   expression  in  the  same 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  1 8/ 

general  sense  in  which  He  found  it  used  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  He  came  to  fulfil 
the  outline  of  the  old  revelation.  The  roots  of  all  His 
teaching  are  in  the  Old  Testament.  Further,  it  is 
manifest  that  Christ's  view  of  the  kingdom  was  in  line 
with  Old  Testament  prophecy,  because  when  He 
began  His  teaching,  He  said,  "The  appointed  time  is 
fulfilled"  (Mark  i.  15).  This  must  have  been  under- 
stood by  His  hearers  as  meaning  the  interval  which 
was  to  elapse  before  the  fulfilment  of  the  old  prophe- 
cies of  a  coming  kingdom. 

Yet  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  Christ's  view  of  the 
kingdom  was  the  popular  view  because  it  was  based 
upon   the   Old   Testament.      It  was  far  more  compre- 
hensive  and  more  spiritual  than  the  common  view  of 
the  Jews.      The   common  view  was  in  line  with  those 
Old  Testament  passages  which  dwell  on  the  outward 
glory  of  the   Messiah's  kingdom.      Deliverance    from 
enemies,  political  supremacy  of  the  Jews,  a  splendid 
city,  and  temporal  prosperity — these  were  the  features 
which   received   emphasis   in   the   popular   mind,    but 
they  are  not  mentioned  by  Christ.      He  puts  in  their 
place  deliverance  from  sin,  purity  of  heart,  fellowship 
with  God,  and  unselfish  service  (Matt.  v.  3,  6,  8;  vi. 
12;    Mark    x.    43-45).      Further,    the    common    view 
placed  a  judgment  by  the  Messiah  at  the  beginning  of 


1 88  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

the  kingdom;  Christ  put  it  at  the  kingdom's  consum- 
mation (Matt.  iii.  12;  xiii.  30).  The  common  view 
emphasized  the  national  character  of  the  kingdom; 
Christ's  teaching,  though  designed  primarily  for  the 
Jews,  was  without  national  limitations.  It  was 
adapted  to  man  as  man. 

But  while  Christ's  teaching  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  based  on  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  more  than  the 
Old  Testament  teaching.  That  was  the  shadow;  this 
the  substance.  That  was  an  imperfect  dream;  this  a 
divine  realization.  Christ  wa-s  greater  than  the  tem- 
ple, and  His  kingdom  more  glorious  than  the  com- 
bined visions  of  all  the  prophets. 

The  term  kingdom  of  God,  as  used  by  Christ,  has 
not  a  constant  meaning.  There  are  at  least  four  great 
ideas  which  are  at  times  associated  with  it.  Some- 
times one  of  these  is  its  prominent  burden,  sometimes 
another.  First,  the  term  means  the  dominion  of  God, 
realized  within  and  without,  but  with  the  emphasis  on 
the  inward  realization  (Matt.  iii.  2;  iv.  17;  vi.  10; 
xiii.  44,  45).  Christ  did  not  discuss  the  relation  of 
His  truth  to  political  affairs,  or  set  up  civil  ideals. 
His  aim  was  moral  and  religious.  Yet  He  of  course 
knew  that  the  inner  determines  the  outer,  and  that 
when  the  dominion  of  God  is  realized  in  the  heart,  it 
will   begin  to  realize  itself  in  the  social  and  civil   rela- 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST   PART.  1 89 

tions  of  the  individual,  and  ultimately  transform  them 
all.  Second,  the  term  means  the  covipany  of  those 
who  are  under  the  dominion  of  God.  Thus  Jesus  says 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  consists  of  those  who  are 
childhke  in  heart  (Mark  x.  14;  Matt.  xiii.  24,  41). 
Third,  it  means  the  blessings  and  privileges  that 
accompany  the  divine  dominion,  as  when  Jesus  tells 
the  Jews- that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  shall  be  taken 
away  from  them,  and  be  given  to  a  nation  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  of  it  (Matt.  v.  3,  10;  xxi.  43). 
Finally,  it  means  the  place  that  is  to  be  occupied  in 
the  future  by  those  who  are  under  the  divine  dominion 
(Matt.  vii.  21;  viii.  11;  xiii.  43;  xxv.  34;  xxvi.  29). 
This  signification  is  quite  common.  Thus  Jesus  says 
that  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and 
shall  sit  down  with  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and  that  after  the  linahsepara- 
tion,  the  righteous  shall  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the 
kingdom  of  their  Father. 

As  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  regarding  His  own 
person,  we  may  say  that  both  in  the  Synoptists  and 
John  it  is  the  real  burden  of  His  words.  Teaching 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  the  first  three 
Gospels  leads  up  to  this  greatest  theme.  His  words 
and  works  are  designed  to  reveal  Him  as  the  prom- 
ised  Messiah,  the   anointed   One   from   God,  sent   for 


190        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

the  deliverance  of  the  world.  In  the  Synoptists  we 
have  a  gradual  unfolding  of  His  Messianic  claim;  in 
the  fourth  Gospel  we  have  the  claim  at  the  begin- 
ning of  His  ministry.  But  in  all  alike  is  the  ultimate 
word  which  He  speaks,  and  both  here  and  in  eternity 
the  condition  of  men  is  said  to  be  determined  by  their 
attitude  toward  Him.  This  teaching  of  Jesus  in  regard 
to  His  person  is  simple,  especially  in  the  Synoptists. 
Even  when  speaking  of  His  death  His  words  neither 
contain  a  definite  theory  of  atonement,  nor  afford  ade- 
quate basis  for  any  elaborate  theory.  But  their  bur- 
den is  everywhere  unmistakable,  the  absolute  value  of 
Himself  in  the  redemption  of  man. 

Particular  points  in  His  teaching  will  be  touched 
from  time  to  time,  especially  as  they  bear  on  the  biog- 
raphy of  Jesus,  but  this  very  general  statement  may 
suffice  for  the  present. 

(4)  CJirisf  s  Relation  to  the  Laiv  and  to  Tradition. 
Jesus  regarded  the  law  as  a  plant  planted  by  His 
heavenly  Father,  and  tradition  as  a  heavy  burden 
imposed  by  men  (Matt.  xv.  13;  xxiii.  4).  He  ful- 
filled the  requirements  of  the  law  as  He  understood 
it.  His  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  which  created 
the  deepest  hostility  toward  Him,  was  wholly  in 
accord  with  the  spirit  of  the  law.  He  justified  it  by 
the  example  of  David  (Mark  ii.  25-26),  by  the  moral 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  I91 

sense  of  men  (Mark  iii.  4),  by  the  experience  of  His 
critics  (Luke  xiii.  15;  xiv.  5),  and  by  the  example  of 
God  Himself  (John  v.  17).  He  said  substantially 
that  God:  was  active  on  the  Sabbath,  and  that  for 
this  reason  He  was  active. 

Not  only  was  the  Sabbath  kept  by  Jesus,  but 
other  requirements  of  the  law  as  well.  He  sent  the 
healed  leper  to  fulfil  the  Mosaic  statute  (Mark  i.  44). 
He  paid  the  half  shekel  (Matt.  xvii.  25).  He  kept  the 
Passover  (Matt.  xxvi.  17).  He  did  not  pronounce  all 
meats  clean  as  regards  Levitical  cleanness  (Mark  vii. 
19),  but  He  went  deeper  than  the  Levitical  ordinance, 
and  taught  purity  of  heart.  First  and  last,  Jesus 
declared  that  He  had  come  to  fulfil  the  law,  and  that 
not  one  jot  of  it  should  perish  till  it  was  wholly  ful- 
filled (Matt.  V.  18;  xxiii.  3).  He  recognized  no  dis- 
tinction between  the  moral  and  the  ceremonial  parts 
of  the  law.  The  law  was  an  organic  whole,  and  He 
was  in  vital  connection  with  it.  Hence  His  disciples 
saw  Him  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration  talking  with 
Moses  and  Elijah. 

Jesus  regarded  the  law  as  fulfilled  in  Himself,  and 
hence,  as  law  for  His  disciples,  it  gave  place  to  His 
word  and  His  person.  Throughout  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  Jesus  sets  Himself  in  seeming  antithesis 
to  the  law,  and  yet  not  in  the  antithesis  of  opposition, 


192        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

but  in  the  antithesis  of  fulfilment  and  consummation. 
The  antithesis  involves  the  same  thought  that  is  con- 
tained in  Christ's  declaration  that  He  was  greater  than 
the  temple  (Matt.  xii.  6).  He  was  the  consummation 
toward  which  the  temple  and  all  the  law  pointed. 
As  greater  than  the  temple.  His  word  and  His  person 
took  the  place  of -the  temple  for  His  disciples  and  His 
kingdom. 

Since  Christ's  attitude  toward  the  law  was  one  of 
profound  loyalty,  Hejcould  not  do  other  than  con- 
demn the  traditions  of  the  scribes.  He  charged  them 
with  neglect  of  the  important  matters  of  religion 
(Matt,  xxiii.  23).  Their  observances  were  a  grievous 
burden  (Matt,  xxiii.  4).  He  disregarded  them  com- 
pletely, and  it  was  this  opposition  to  tradition  which 
at  last  caused  His  death. 

((f)  The  Demonized.  We  pass  in  this  section  to 
consider  a  phenomenon  which  presents  itself  almost 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  and  which 
created  a  deep  impression  (Mark  i.  27),  namely  the 
casting  out  of  demons.  The  first  case  occurred  in 
the  synagogue  in  Capernaum,  and  apparently  on  the 
first  occasion  of  Jesus'  appearing  there  (Mark  i.  21-27). 

(i)  Occasions  and  Terms.  The  casting  out  of 
demons  belonged  to  the  Galilean  ministry  in  particu- 
lar.     There  is  no  reference  to  this  phenomenon  in  the 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  1 93 

Judean  ministry.  There  are  six  cases  of  demoniac 
possession  which  are  described  in  detail  (Mark  i.  23; 
V.  2;  vii.  25;  ix.  25;  Matt.  ix.  32;  xii.  22),  and  there 
is  a  reference  to  another  individual  case,  that  of  Mary 
Magdalene  (Luke  viii.  2).  There  are,  also,  three 
general  references  to  the  cure  of  demonized  ones 
(Mark  i.  34,  39;  iii.  11).  These  ten  references,  par- 
ticular and  general,  are  all  connected  with  the  min- 
istry of  Jesus.  In  addition  to  these  references,  it  is 
said  that  the  twelve  apostles  cast  out  many  demons, 
when  they  were  sent  forth  by  Jesus  on  the  Galilean 
mission  (Mark  vi.  13).  The  scvoity  disciples  also 
reported  to  Jesus  that  the  demons  had  been  subject 
to  them  (Luke  x.  17).  There  is  also  a  reference  to 
an  unknown  man  whom  the  disciples  found  casting 
out  demons  (Mark  ix.  38). 

The  terms  used  for  the  foreign  power  which  was 
said  to  possess  the  man  are  dcinon  (Mark  i.  34;  Matt, 
viii.  31),  spirit  (Mark  ix.  20,  etc.),  unclean  spirit 
(Mark  i.  23,  etc.),  and  evil  spirit  (Luke  vii.  21). 

A  man  is  never  said  to  have  the  devil,  or  a  devil, 
or  Satan. 

John's  references    to    demons    are    peculiar.      He 

makes  no  mention  of  demoniac  possession  as  that  is 

understood   by  the   Synoptists.      On  one  occasion  he 

says  that  the  multitude  charged  Jesus  with  having  a 
13 


194        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

demon,  because  He  had  said  that  they  were  seeking 
to  kill  Him  (John  vii.  20).  Again,  when  Jesus  told 
the  Jews  that  they  were  not  of  God,  they  retorted 
that  He  had  a  demon  (John  viii.  48);  and  when  He 
said  that  a  man  who  kept  His  word  should  never  die, 
they  told  Him  that  He  had  a  demon  (John  viii.  52). 
Finally,  when  He  had  presented  Himself  as  the  good 
shepherd,  who  had  power  to  lay  down  his  life  and 
take  it  again,  they  told  Him  that  He  had  a  demon 
and  was  mad  (John  x.  20).  In  all  these  passages  Jesus 
is  charged  with  having  a  demon  because  of  certain 
statements  which  He  made  concerning  Himself  and 
the  Jews.  This  charge  is  a  form  of  abiisive  language. 
To  say  that  He  had  a  demon  was  equivalent  to  calling 
Him  a  Samaritan,  and  to  saying  that  He  was  mad 
(John  viii.  48;  x.  20).  This  Johannean  usage  implies 
that  people  in  Judea,  no  less  than  those  of  Galilee, 
believed  in  the  reality  of  demoniac  possession.-  If 
men  had  not  at  least  believed  in  the  reality  of  demon- 
iac possession,  there  would  have  been  no  force  in  the 
abusive  language  when  they  said  that  Jesus  had  a 
demon.  ^ 

(2)  Demoniac  Possession  and  Physical  Disease. 
As  a  rule,  the  Synoptists  distinguish  between  demoniac 
possession  and  physical  disease  (Mark  i.  34;  vi.   13). 

I  Analogous  to  the  Johannean  usage  is  Mark  iii.  22. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  1 95 

In  His  commission  to  the  twelve,  Jesus  distinguishes 
between  them  (Matt.  x.  i).  Sometimes  physical 
affections  are  associated  with  demoniac  possession,  as 
deafness,  dumbness,  and  epilepsy  (Matt.  ix.  32;  xii. 
22;  Mark  ix.  18),  but  they  are  by  no  means  identified. 
In  these  cases  the  physical  ailment  is  regarded  as  the 
work  of  the  demon,  and  when  the  demon  is  cast  out, 
the  ailment  is  removed.  As  a  rule,  however — and 
this  point  is  of  great  importance — possession  by 
demons  is  wholly  distinct  from  physical  disease.  It 
is  conceivable,  perhaps,  that  the  evangelists  were 
mistaken  in  their  view  of  the  matter,  but  such  was  at 
least  their  view. 

(3)  Demoniac  Possession  and  Sin.  There  is  no 
indication  that  demoniacs  were  regarded  as  especially 
wicked  either  by  Jesus  or  by  others.  Weiss''  view 
that  in  the  demoniac  the  sinful  state  had  reached  a 
climax,  where  the  man  no  longer  had  sin  but  sin  had 
the  man,  is,  as  Beyschlag  says,  without  a  particle  of 
support  in  the  Gospels.  The  case  of  a  boy  who  had 
a  demon  from  childhood  shows  that  Jesus  cannot 
have  attributed  demoniac  possession  to  special  sinful- 
ness (Mark  ix.  27).  But  the  same  thing  may  be  surely 
inferred  from  the  total  absence  of  any  allusion  by 
Jesus  or  by  others  to  the  sinfulness  of  demoniacs.      At 

I  Das  Leben  Jesu,  i.  459. 


ICjf)  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

the  same  time  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  the 
demoniacs  were  £-c?ot/  men  before  they  came  under 
demoniacal  influence.  This  is  not  hkely.  It  is 
probable  that  the  demoniacs  had  belonged  to  the 
world  rather  than  to  God,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of 
their  being  especially  bad. 

(4)  Dojioiiac  Recognition  of  Jesus.  It  was 
characteristic  of  the  demoniacs  that  they  recognized 
Jesus  as  a  divine  being.  They  call  Him  the  Holy  One  of 
God  (Mark  i.  24),  tJie  Son  ^/ (7^^/ (Mark  iii.  11),  and 
tJic  Son  of  the  Most  High  God  (Mark  v.  7).  They 
asked  whether  He  had  come  to  tornie)it  or  destroy 
them,  thus  recognizing  His  superior  power  (Mark  i.  24; 
v.  7).  It  is  psychologically  impossible  to  explain  this 
fact  if  the  demonized  were  only  ill  ph\'sicall}-,  and  it 
is  morally  impossible  to  explain  it  if  the  demonized 
were  only  very  wicked  persons.  Surely  sin  does  not 
clarify  the  vision  for  the  recognition  of  the  Divine; 
and  we  cannot  believe  that  any  physical  ailment  would 
have  given  the  demoniacs  a  clearer  insight  into  the 
character  of  Jesus  than  His  own  friends  and  disciples 
had.  "The  recognition  of  Jesus  by  the  possessed," 
says  Weiss,  ^  "is  explicable  only  on  the  supposition  that 
the  possessed  ones  were  really  under  the  influence  of 
a  superhuman   spiritual  power,  which  was  conscious 

I   Das  Lcbcu  Jfsn,  i.  463. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:     FIRST    PART.  1 97 

not  only  of  its  absolute  opposition  to  the  Holy  One  of 
God,  but  also  of  His  supremacy  over  the  kingdom  of 
evil,  which  Christ  as  the  chosen  of  God  had  come  to 
destroy."  Keim\  v^ho  regards  demoniac  possession 
as  a  mental  disease,  adopts  heroic  treatment  in 
regard  to  the  passages  which  represent  the  demons  as 
recognizing  Jesus.  He  sa3's  they  are  not  historical. 
It  is  the  evangelists  who  put  this  recognition  of  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  upon  the  lips  of  the  demonized. 
They  themselves  really  believed  that  the  demoniacs 
were  possessed  by  demons,  and  they  represent  them 
as  acknowledging  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ;  but  they  did 
this,  he  says,  from  a  dogmatic  rather  than  a  historical 
interest.  This  treatment  of  the  text  is  necessary  to 
the  support  of  his  view,  but  it  is  too  arbitrary  to  be 
seriously  considered. 

(5)  Chris fs  Treatment  of  Denioniaes.  Jesus 
treated  the  demoniacs  as  though  they  were  really 
possessed  by  evil  spirits.  He  called  upon  the  un- 
clean spirit  to  come  out  of  the  Gerasene  (Mark  v.  8). 
In  like  manner  He  addressed  the  spirit  which  pos- 
sessed a  certain  boy,  summoning  it  forth  and  forbid- 
ding it  to  enter  him  again  (Mark  ix.  25).  Now  it 
might  perhaps  be  said  that  in  these  cases  Jesus  accom- 
modated  Himself   to   the   delusions   of  the  possessed 

I  Jesus  of  Nazara,  iii.  226-239. 


19<:^        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

ones  in  order  to  heal  them.  But  He  treated  the  mat- 
ter in  the  same  way  when  discoursing  with  His  disci- 
ples and  with  other  Jews.  Thus  He  commissioned 
His  apostles  to  cast  out  demons  (Mark  vi.  7),  and  He 
tells  the  seventy  not  to  rejoice  that  the  spirits  were 
subject  to  them,  but  rather  in  the  fact  that  their 
names  were  written  in  heaven  (Luke  x.  20).  Had 
Jesus  known  that  demoniacs  were  not  controlled  by 
evil  spirits,  that  this  was  a  mere  superstition,  we 
should  certainly  expect  that,  when  speaking  with  His 
disciples.  He  would  have  told  them  this.  Or  are  we 
to  hold  with  Beyschlag^  that  Jesus  Himself  shared  the 
Jewish  notion  in  so  far  at  least  as  to  attribute  the 
phenomenon  to  Satan  while  it  was  really  a  mental 
malady.^  This  does  not  seem  probable.  For,  tirst, 
this  view  does  not  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
demonized  ones  addressed  Jesus  as  the  Holy  One  of 
God  and  the  Son  of  God.  And,  second,  it  is  not 
consistent  with  the  intimate  knowledge  which  Jesus 
had  of  spiritual  phenomena.  He  knew  in  an  alto- 
gether exceptional  manner  what  was  in  man.  He 
read  spiritual  states  as  no  one  else  had  ever  done. 
In  view  of  this  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  He 
should  have  utterly  failed  to  diagnose  this  phenome- 
non of  demoniac  possession.     We  cannot,  -then,  adopt 

I  Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  293-295. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  1 99 

the  view  of  Beyschlag  that  Jesus  Himself  shared  in  a 
popular  delusion  when  He  talked  of  demoniac  posses- 
sion. 

(6)  Co7iclusion.  We  conclude  that  the  demon- 
ized  ones  were,  according  to  the  Synoptists  and 
according  to  Jesus  Himself,  actually  possessed  by  an 
evil  spirit,  and  that  the  language  of  the  Gospels,  if 
historical,  cannot  be  explained  unless  this  possession 
was  a  reality.  But  the  proof  which  we  have  for  this 
reality  is  wanting  in  connection  with  the  phenomena 
of  any  other  time  which  have  been  called  demoniac 
possession. 

Intrinsically  considered,  it  is  no  more  difficult  to 
understand  how  an  evil  spirit  can  enter  into  a  human 
being  who  is  alienated  from  God  than  to  understand 
how  the  Holy  Spirit  can  enter  into  a  human  being 
who  is  united  to  God.  But  centuries  of  Christian 
experience  prove  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  thus  enter 
into  men  and  control  them.  Further,  we  may  say 
that  it  was  antecedently  probable  that  some  extraor- 
dinary manifestation  of  Satan  should  accompany  the 
extraordinary  manifestation  of  God  in  Christ.  Jesus 
came  to  destroy  the  works  of  Satan,  and  it  was  natural 
that  Satan  should  make  especial  efforts  to  counteract 
the  influence  of  Jesus. 

id)     The   Miracles   of    Healing.      The    miracles    of 


200  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

healing  belong  largely  to  the  first  part  of  the  Galilean 
ministry,  as  do  the  cases  of  demoniac  possession,  and 
therefore  may  properly  be  considered  as  a  whole  in 
this  place. 

(i)  Nii))iber  ayid  \Wricty.  Specific  cases  of  heal- 
m^  by  Jesus  are  more  than  twice  as  abundant  in  the 
Gospels  as  the  specific  cases  of  casting  out  demons, 
there  being  at  least  sev^enteen.  These  are  met  with 
in  Jerusalem  as  well  as  in  Galilee.  Besides  the  spe- 
cific cases  of  healing,  there  are  at  least  three  general 
statements,  which  involve  the  cure  of  many  sick  per- 
sons at  different  times  (Mark  i.  34;  iii.  10;  vi.  56 
compared  with  Matt.  viii.  16;  Luke  iv.  40;  vi.  19). 
Two  of  these  general  statements  seem  to  involve  the 
healing  of  many  sick,  not  in  one  place  as  Capernaum, 
but  in  many  places  throughout  Galilee. 

The  different  diseases  and  physical  defects  which 

Jesus  is  said  to  have  healed  are  eleven,  namely,  fever 

(Mark  i.  30),  leprosy  (Mark  i.  42),  palsy  (Mark  ii.  10), 

withered  hand  (Mark  iii.   i),   issue  of  blood   (Mark  v. 

25),  deafness  (Mark  vii.  32),  dumbness  (Matt.  xv.  30J, 

blindness    (Mark    viii.     22),     dropsy    (Luke     xiv.     2), 

deformity   (Luke   xiii.    11),    and  lameness   (Luke   vii. 

22)\      It  can  not   be   affirmed  that   each   of  these  dis- 
» 

I  The  restoration  of  the  ear  of  Malchus  (Luke  xxii.  51),  which 
Peter  had  cut  off,  may  be  added,  if  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  regarded 
as  historicaL 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  20I 

eases  is  surely  different  from  the  others,  nor  can  it  be 
affirmed  that  all  together  exhaust  the  cases  which 
Jesus  healed.  Matthew  twice  speaks  of  all  manner  of 
sickness  and  all  manner  of  disease  as  cured  by  Jesus 
(Matt.  iv.  23;  ix.  35J.  It  may  be  noted  that  all  the 
specified  diseases,  except  the  first,  are  ehronie. 

(2)   Method  and  Condition.      It   was  common   for 
Jesus  to  lay  His  hand  on  the  sick  as  He  healed  them, 
or  to  come  into   some  sort  of   physical  contact  with 
them,  but  about  as  common  not  to  do  so  (Mark  i.  41; 
viii.  23;  Luke  xiii.   13;  Matt.  xiv.  36;   Mark  ii.   11;   iii. 
5;  X.   52;  Matt.  viii.   i3;Lukexvii.  14).      Hence  it  can 
not  be  said  that  His  cures  were  wrought  by  virtue  of 
the  touch,  as  though  by  some  sort  of  animal  magnet- 
ism.     It  seems  to  have  been  the  belief  of  some  who 
sought  healing  from  Jesus,  that  to  touch   His  body  or 
even  His  garments  would  bring  the  desired  help,  and . 
even  though  Jesus  was  unaware  of  their  touch  (Mark 
V.  27;  vi.  56).      This,  however,  was  surely  a  supersti- 
tious   belief.       Jesus    healed,    as     He    also    cast    out 
demons  and  raised  the  dead,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  or 
by  the   finger  of   God   (Matt.    xii.    28;    Luke   xi.    20; 
Mark  vii.  33-34;  John  xi.   41-42).     It  was  by  an  act 
of  His  will,   in  dependence  upon  God.      When  Jesus 
touched   a   sick   person   or  laid  His  hands  upon  Him, 
the  act  was   not   neeessary,    for,  as  we  have   seen,    in 


202  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

about  half  the  instances,  there  was  }io  touch,  but  it 
was  a  natural  thing  to  do,  expressive  of  sympathy  and 
tending  to  awaken  confidence. 

As  a  rule,  whether  accompanied  by  a  touch  or  not, 
Jesus  spoke  some  word  to  the  sick,  which  was  fol- 
lowed by  immediate  or  gradual  recovery  (Mark  i.  41; 
iii.  5,  etc.).  In  a  single  instance,  He  is  represented 
as  addressing  the  disease  itself  (Luke  iv.  39J,  as  He 
addressed  the  wind  and  the  sea. 

In  one  case,  that  of  the  nobleman's  son  in  Caper- 
naum, the  cure  was  wrought  in  the  distance,  Christ's 
word  of  assurance  to  the  father  being  spoken  in  Cana 
(John  iv.  46-53);  or,  if  we  identify  the  event  of  Matt, 
viii.  5-13  with  the  healing  recorded  in  John  iv.  46-53,^ 
the  word  was  spoken  in  Capernaum,  but  still  at  a  dis- 
tance from  the  house. 

It  was  not  Christ's  method  to  make  use  of  any 
physical  means  in  healing  the  sick.  He  did  so  in  but 
three  cases,  one  of  deafness  and  two  of  blindness 
(Mark  vii..32^  viii.  22;  John  ix.  6).  Once  He  put 
spittle  on  the  tongue,  and  twice  He  put  it  on  the  eyes, 
in  one  case  mingled  with  clay.     The  spittle  in  these 

I  It  seems  very  difficult  to  identify  these  incidents.  In  Matt,  it 
is  a  proselyte  who  comes  to  Jesus;  in  John,  a  Jew.  In  Matt,  the 
man  is  comjnended  iox  his  great  faith;  in  John,  he  is  rather  rebuked 
for  lack  of  faith.  Then  there  is  the  difference  in  place,  Jesus  being 
in  Capernaum  according  to  Matthew,  but  in  Cana  according  to  John. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  203 

cases  can  not  be  regarded  as  a  medicinal  agent  that  ef- 
fected the  cure.  One  man  whose  eyes  Jesus  anointed 
was  born  blind  (John  ix.  i).  Now  although  spittle 
was  a  medicine  for  ophthalmia,  it  surely  could  not 
give  sight  to  one  born  blind.  Therefore  the  means 
sometimes  employed  by  Jesus  must  be  otherwise 
explained.  We  should  probably  regard  them  in  the 
same  way  that  we  regard  His  touch.  Neither  was 
necessary,  but  either  may  have  aided  weak  faith. 
Weiss  supposes  that  the  healing,  in  these  cases,  was 
miraculously  begun,  but  was  then  aided  by  the  phys- 
ical means.  Support  for  this  view  seems  to  be 
wanting. 

As  to  the  condition  on  which  miracles  of  healing 
were  wrought  it  may  be  said  that,  as  a  rule,  faith  was 
required.  Jesus  could  not  do  mighty  works  in  Naza- 
reth because  of •  the  unbelief  of  the  people  (Mark  vi.  5). 
He  asked  the  blind  men  if  they  believed AhdX  he  could 
heal  them  (Matt.  ix.  28).  In  several  cases.  He  said, 
after  the  cure,  * '  Thy  faith  -has  saved  thee  "  (Mark  v. 
34;  X.  52;  Luke  xvii.  19).  The  faith  which  Jesus 
rewarded  with  a  miracle  of  healing  was  not  always 
exercised  by  the  sick  person.  In  some  cases  the  faith 
of  the  sick  person's  friends  is  said  to  condition  the 
cure  (Mark  ii.  5;  John  iv.  46).  It  perhaps  cannot  be 
said  that   faith   was  absolutely  necessary  to  a  miracle 


204        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

of  healing.^  As  Jesus  raised  the  dead  when  there  was 
apparently  no  clear  belief  that  He  could  do  so,  He 
may  also  have  healed  the  sick,  if  He  chose,  even 
when  faith  was  wanting.  We  are  not  however  at 
liberty  to  suppose  that  Jesus  would  have  wrought 
miracles  of  any  sort  had  there  been  a  positive*  and 
outspoken  unbelief. 

In  many  cases  of  healing,  no  explicit  reference  is 
made  to  faith  as  in  anywise  conditioning  the  cure, 
though  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  no  faith  was 
exercised. 

The  faith  that  was,  as  a  rule,  required  was  faith 
in  Jesus  as  one  sent  from  God  who  was  able  to  work 
the  desired  cure.  It  was  not  faith  in  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  it  was  not  even  faith  in  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus.  It  was  only  a  belief  that  He  was  able  to  help 
them.  This  faith  might  be  mixed  with  much  of 
superstition,  as  in  the  case  of  the  woman  who  thought 
that  the  touching  of  Christ's  garment  would  of  itself 
make  her  whole. 

(3)  Piirposc  of  the  Miracles  of  Healing.  These 
acts  'of  Jesus  were  a  part  of  His  proper  Messianic 
work.  When  John  the  Baptist  sent  from  his  prison 
to  learn  whether  Jesus  was  really  the  Messiah,  Jesus 
replied  in  words  borrowed  from   Isaiah  xxxv.  5-6;  Ixi. 

I   See  Weiss,  Das  Lehen  Jesn,  i.  469. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  205 

I,  which  referred  to  His  miracles  of  healing  and  His 
preaching  to  the  poor.  Thus  He  seems  to  have 
regarded  the  Old  Testament  picture  of  the  Messianic 
deliverance  as  involving  deliverance  from  physical  ills. 
By  His  miracles  as  well  as  by  His  preaching  He  fulfilled 
the  prophetic  picture  of  the  Messiah's  work. 

Yet  miracles  by  themselves  did  not  prove  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  He  did  not  affirm  that  they 
did.  Old  Testament  prophets  had  wrought  similar 
miracles.  The  Messianic  significance  of  the  signs 
was  nothing  apart  from  the  Messianic  claim  made  by 
Jesus.  But  since  He  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  sent 
£rom  God,  the  signs  which  God  granted  Him  power 
to  do  were  a  divine  endorsement  of  His  claim.  Plainly 
then  the  force  of  the  signs  was  by  no  means  irresist- 
ible. A  certain  moral  earnestness  and  spiritual  insight 
were  needful  if  men  were  to  accept  the  signs  as  evi- 
dence of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  This  is  involved, 
for  example,  in  the  answer  which  Jesus  sent  to  the 
Baptist,  which  has  already  been  cited.  The  last  word 
of  that  answer  was,  "  Blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall 
find  none  occasion  of  stumbling  in  me."  He  would 
not  have  spoken  thus  had  not  the  witness  of  His 
miracles  needed  to  be  confirmed  by  the  apprehension 
of  Himself.  So  again  He  exhorts  the  Jews  to  believe 
His  works,  which   shows  that   the  acceptance   of  the 


206        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

works  was  not  like  the  acceptance  of  mathematical 
evidence  (John  x.  38).  One  might  refuse  to  accept 
it.  Accordingly  we  find  that  in  the  case  of  the  people 
in  general  the  signs  of  Jesus  did  not  accomplish  their 
purpose.  They  were  regarded  as  proving  that  He 
was  a  teacher  come  from  God,  or  a  great  prophet,  but 
nothing  more  (John  iii.  2;  ix.  33;  xiv.  11;  Matt.  xvi. 
14).  Some  of  His  enemies  however  attributed  them 
to  Satanic  power  (Mark  iii.  22). 

But  while  the  signs  were  not  in  themselves  con- 
clusive evidence  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  they 
were,  in  the  circumstances,  such  an  evidence  that  to 
reject  them  was  a  sufficient  ground  of  judgment. 
Hence  the  stern  woes  that  Jesus  pronounced  on 
Capernaum  and  other  cities  because  His  mighty  works 
had  not  led  them  to  repentance  (Matt.  xi.  20-24). 

ic)  The  Appointment  of  the  Tujelue.  (i)  TJie  Cir- 
cumstances. The  beginnings  of  the  apostolate  were 
made  by  the  Jordan,  when  Jesus  returned  from  the 
temptation,  and  attached  to  Himself  five  of  the  disciples 
of  the  Baptist.  During  the  eight  months  of  the  Judean 
ministry,  it  seems  probable  that  John  was  with 
Jesus,  because  of  the  information  regarding  this  period 
which  he  gives,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
others  were  with  Him.  On  the-contrary,  the  absence 
of   any   reference  to   this   ministry   in   the  Gospel   of 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY!    FIRST    PART.  20/ 

Mark,  which  was  based  on  the  preaching  of  Peter, 
makes  it  somewhat  probable  that  Peter  was  not  with 
Jesus  during  these  months. 

According  to  all  the  Synoptists,  as  soon  as  Jesus 
began  His  Galilean  ministry,  He  called  Simon  and 
Andrew,  James  and  John  (Mark  i.  16-20).  If  John 
had  been  with  Him  in  Judea,  he  had  now  returned 
again  to  Capernaum,  and  was  engaged  temporarily  at 
his  trade  when  Jesus  called  him. 

The  great  draught  of  fishes  recorded  by  Luke  (v.  1-9) 
seems  to  belong  very  near  the  day  on  which  the  first 
four  disciples  were  called  to  permanent  fellowship  with 
Jesus,  if  not  on  that  very  day  itself.  Its  central  teach- 
ing, the  promise  of  success  in  their  discipleship,  natur- 
ally suggests  that  the  event  was  associated  with  their 
call,  as  does  also  Luke's  remark  that  after  the  draught 
of  fish  the  disciples  left  all  and  followed  Jesus  (Luke 
V.  11).  The  evangelist  plainly  thought  that,  hitherto, 
these  men  had  not  followed  Jesus  unless  in  an  inci- 
dental way.  The  fact  that  the  lesson  of  this  event  is 
none  other  than  that  of  the  draught  of  fishes  taken  by 
the  seven  disciples  after  the  resurrection  (John  xxi. 
I- 11),  can  scarcely  be  regarde^i  as  sufficient  evidence 
on  which  to  reject  the  historical  character  of  the 
former  event.' 

I   See  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  i.  259. 


208  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

The  Synoptists  make  special  reference  to  the  call 
of  Matthew  (Mark  ii.  13-15),  and  then  without  men- 
tion of  any  other  disciples  by  name  they  come  to  the 
appointment  of  the  twelve.  The  time  seems  to  have 
been  toward  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  not 
many  weeks  before  the  twelve  were  sent  out.  The 
place  was  some  eminence  not  far  from  Capernaum 
(Mark  iii.  13;  Luke  v.  12).  The  night  before  the 
appointment  was  spent  by  Jesus  in  pra3^er  (Luke  vi. 
12).  There  is  no  indication  of  the  size  of  the  body  of 
disciples  out  of  which  Jesus  chose  the  twelve. 

(2)  The  Men.  The  choice  of  exactly  tivclvc 
disciples,  while  it  may  have  been  influenced  some- 
what by  the  amount  of  work  to  be  done  and  by  the 
number  of  available  men,  was  doubtless  chiefly  due 
to  the  mission  for  which  Christ  chose  them.  They 
were  not  to  go  into  any  way  of  the  Gentiles,  but  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  Israel  (Matt.  x.  5-6).  As  destined  pri- 
maril}'  for  the  twelve-fold  people  they  were  twelve. 

The  twelve  were  probably  for  the  most  part  Gali- 
leans, perhaps  exclusively  so.  It  was  in  Galilee 
that  the  continuous  public  Messianic  work  of  Jesus 
began,  and  in  Galilge  that  He  made  the  deepest 
spiritual  impression.  Peter,  Andrew  and  Philip  were 
natives  of  Bethsaida  (John  i.  44);  James  and  John 
were  at  home  in  Capernaum  (Mark  i.   19).      Bartholo- 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  209 

inevv-Nathanael  was  from  Cana  Tjohn  xxi.  2.)  Mat- 
thew seems  to  have  hved  in  Capernaum  (Mark  ii.  14.) 
If  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus  and  Thomas  were 
brothers  of  Matthew,  as  Weiss^  thinks,  then  five  of  the 
twelve  apostles  were  from  Capernaum.  Simon,  the 
Cananaean  was  probably  a  Galilean,  lor  it  was  in 
Galilee  particularl}^  that  Zealots  were  found.  The 
only  one  of  the  twelve  whose  name  points  away  from 
Galilee  is  Judas  Iscariot,  Iscariot  meaning  man  of 
Kerioth,  and  Kerioth  was  in  Judea.  But  too  much 
weight  must  not  be  given  to  this  circumstance,  for 
John  twice  attaches  the  word  Iscariot  to  the  father 
of  Judas  (John  vi.  71;  xiii.  26).  In  accordance  with 
this,  Judas  himself  may  well  have  been  a  Galilean. 

The  choice  of  Judas  was  as  the  choice  of  the 
others.  Jesus  hoped  he  would  be  a  useful  disciple. 
He  doubtless  knew  his  weakness  and  peril,  as  He 
knew  the  weaknesses  of  the  other  disciples,  but  He 
anticipated  that  Judas  would  be  loyal  to  Him.  At 
the  time  of  the  crisis  in  Capernaum  Jesus  saw  that 
Judas  was  being  alienated  from  Him,  and,  according 
to  John,  alluded  to  this  defection  of  Judas  when  He 
said,  "Did  not  I  choose  you  the  twelve,  and  one  of 
you  is  a  dcviT'  (John  vi.  70).^  But  it  cannot  be 
inferred  that  He  gave  up  hope  of  winning  Judas  even 

I  Das  Lehcn  Jcsu,  ii.  85. 
14 


2IO        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

then.  He  referred  to  Him,  without  calling  his  name, 
as  a  devil,  but  He  called  Peter  Sata7i  to  his  face,  and 
yet  won  him  to  permanent  loyalty  (Matt.  xvi.  23). 

As  regards  the  education  and  social  position  of  the 
twelve,  it  is  sometimes  underestimated.^  Four  only 
were  fishermen,  as  far  as  the  record  informs  us,  and 
of  these  James  and  John  belonged  to  a  family  of 
means  and  of  high  social  standing.  Their  father  had 
hired  servants  (Mark  i.  20).  Their  mother  was  one 
of  the  women  who  supported  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  41), 
and  John  seems  to  have  had  a  home  in  Jerusalem 
after  the  crucifixion,  to  which  he  took  the  mother  of 
Jesus  (John  xix.  27).  As  to  social  standing,  John  was 
acquainted  with  the  high  priest,  so  that  he  not  only 
had  admission  to  the  palace  himself,  but  was  able 
also  to  bring  Peter  in  at  the  time  of  the  trial- of  Jesus 
(John  xviii.  }  5). 

Matthew  must  have  been  a  man  of  some  educa- 
tion and  business  ability  in  order  to  occupy  the  posi- 
tion of  taxgatherer.  It  may  safely  be  assumed  that 
all  of  the  twelve  had  a  thorough  biblical  education  of 
the  rabbinic  sort. 

(3)  Purpose  of  tJie  Appointme7it.  The  immedi- 
ate   purpose    of     the    appointment    of    the    twelve 

I  See,  e.  g.,  Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  p.  354. 
"We  know  what  they  (the  apostles)  are  in  the  Gospels,  fishermen, 
like  their  class,  ignorant,  superstitious,   weak,   impulsive." 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST   PART.  211 

was  plain  within  a  short  time  after  it  was  "made. 
Jesus  called  them  unto  Him,  gave  them  author- 
ity to  cast  out  demons  and  to  heal  the  sick,  and 
sent  them  forth  to  preach  the  kingdom  (Luke  ix. 
1-2;  Mark  vi.  7).  The  immediate  end  in  view  there- 
fore was  the  increasing  of  His  own  influence.  His 
apostles  were  to  spread  the  news  of  the  kingdom 
where  He  had  not  published  it,  and  where  perhaps 
He  might  not  be  able  to  come.  They  were  also  to 
take  part  in  the  Messianic  work  of  casting  out  demons 
and  healing  the  sick. 

The  ultimate  purpose  of  the  appointment  was  that 
these  men,  having  received  special  training  from 
Jesus,  might  carry  on  His  work  in  the  remoter  future, 
after  He  should  have  left  them  (Mark  iii.  14;  Acts 
i.  8).  Consequently  in  the  remainder  of  the  ministry 
of  Jesus,  we  find  Him  giving  more  and  more  time  to 
the  twelve.  He  took  two  somewhat  extensive  tours 
with  them,  one  to  Tyre  and  Sidon,  thence  over 
Lebanon  and  through  Decapolis  to  the  east  side  of 
Lake  of  Galilee  (Mark  vii.  24),  and  the  other  to  the 
region  of  Caesarea  Philippi  (Mark  viii.  27).  Much  of 
the  last  few  weeks  was  devoted  to  the  twelve  and  the 
appearances  of  the  risen  Lord  were  largely  to  the 
apostles,  together  or  individually. 

(/)     Jesus  on  the  Lake,     (i) Stilling  the  Storm.    The 


2  I  2         THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

first   time  that   Jesus  crossed  to  the  east  side  of  Lake 
Gahlee,    at    the    close    of    a    day    in    which    He    had 
addressed  great   multitudes,    the  boat   was  overtaken 
by  a  sudden   and   violent   tempest   (Mark   iv.  3 5-41  j. 
Some  other  boats   had   started   with   Jesus,    but  they 
seem  to  have  returned  before   the   storm.      They  may 
have    accompanied     Him    for    a    distance    as    a    sort 
of   honorary   escort.      When    the   storm    arose,    Jesus 
was  asleep,  and  not    until    the   last    moment    did    His 
disciples  awake  Him.      According  to   Matthew,    Jesus 
first  rebuked  His  disciples  on  account  of  their  lack  of 
faith,  and  then  rebuked  the  wind   and   the   sea  (Matt, 
viii.    26).      According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  He  rebuked 
the  wind   and  the    sea,  and    then    reproved    His    dis- 
ciples (Mark  iv.  39;   Luke  viii.  24;.      All   the   Synop- 
tists  agree  that  Jesus  addressed  the  wind  and  the   sea. 
He  did  this,  not  as  though    He    thought   them    hostile 
powers  that  could  hear  and  obey,  but  because  in  this 
weiy    He   could   most   easily    make    it  manifest  to   His 
disciples  that   He,  by  virtue   of   God's   aid,  could  still 
the  storm.      It  was  like  His  rebuking  the   fever  which 
held    Peter's    mother-in-law    (Luke    iv.    39).       Weiss^ 
thinks  that  Jesus  did  not  speak  to  wind  and  sea,  and 
that   He  could  not  conmiand  the  elements  with  divine 
omnipotence,    as    He   seems   to   do    according   to  the 

I   Das  l.cben  Jcsii.  ii.  34-37. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART,  2n 

evangelists.      It   is  quite  true  that  Jesus  did  not  claim 
to  work   signs  by  virtue  of  inherent  omnipotence,  but 
by  the  Spirit  of  God  (Matt.  xii.  28),  and  in  dependence 
upon  Him  fjohn  xi.  41-42);   but  what   reason  is  there 
to  think  that  He  did  not   still   the   storm    in   this  verv 
way.^     The  fact  that  He  speaks  to  wind  and  sea  surely 
does  not  imply  that  He  is  acting  independently  of  God; 
and  the  circumstance  that  no  prayer  is  here  mentioned 
does  not  justify  us  in   supposing  that  the  evangelists 
thought   of  the   miracle  as  different   from   the   others 
wjought  by  Jesus.     Beyschlag's  objection  to  this  narra- 
tive, that  it  represents  Jesus  as  taking  the  matter  of  His 
personal  safety  into  His  own  hands  instead  of  trusting 
wholly  in  the   Father,  might  be  allowed  to  have  force 
if  Jesus  had  been  aioiic^  in  the  boat.      In  that  case  had 
He  wrought  the  miracle,  it  would  look  as  though   He 
had  yielded  to  the  temptation  which  He  had   success- 
fully   withstood    in    the    wilderness;    but    that    is  not 
the  case.      As  far  as  Jesus  Himself  was  concerned.  He 
7coi(ld  Jurrc  apparently  slept  through   the  storm.      But 
He  had   His  apostles  with  Him,  and  His  act  is  intelli- 
gible as  a  lesson  to  them. 

(2)  Walking  on  the  Lake.  Christ's  deliverance  of 
His  disciples  when  He  came  to  them  walking  on  the 
water  belongs  to  the  second  part  of  the  Galilean  min- 
istry (Mark  vi.  45-52;   Matt.  xiv.  22-33;   John  vi.   16- 


2  14  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

2i),  but  may  conveniently  be  considered  here  because 
of  its  similarity  to  the  miracle  of  stilling  the  storm. 
The  disciples  had  embarked  on  the  east  side  of  the 
lake,  at  evening,  and  started  for  Capernaum  (John  vi, 
17),  perhaps  intending  to  go  from  there  to  Bethsaida 
(Mark  vi.  45).  The  distance  in  a  straight  course  was 
about  four  miles.  The  night  was  light,  for  Jesus  could 
see  the  boat  from  the  eminence  where  He  was  pray- 
ing (Mark  vi.  48).  There  was  no  storm,  but  a  contrary 
wind.  Instead  of  reaching  their  destination  in  an  hour 
or  two,  they  were  on  the  lake  about  nine  hours  and 
not  yet  at  land.  John  estimates  that  they  had  rowed 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty  furlongs,  that  is  three  to 
three  and  half  miles. 

Sometime  between  three  and  six  o'clock  they  saw 
Jesus  walking  on  the  lake.  It  seems  probable  from 
John  vi.  17  that  it  was  Christ's  plan  to  overtake  His 
disciples  in  some  way,  either  by  boat  or  by  following 
along  the  shore  until  they  could  row  in  and  take  Him 
aboard.  John  at  least  was  wondering  why  the  Lord 
did  not  come.  The  language  that  he  uses,  "Jesus 
had  not  yet  come  to  them,"  is  difficult  of  explanation 
unless  Jesus  had  an  understanding  with  His  disciples 
that  He  would  join  them  on  their  way  to  Capernaum. 
This  view  is  strengthened  by  the  circumstance  that 
they  had   been  on   the   lake   from   evening   until   the 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  21  5 

fourth  watch,  for  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  they  had 
rowed  all  that  time.  We  are  rather  to  suppose  that, 
having  embarked,  they  waited  for  the  Lord,  even  as  a 
lar^e  part  of  the  multitude  waited  through  the  entire 
night  in  the  hope  of  intercepting  Jesus  when  He  should 
come  down  from  the  mountain  (John  vi.  22). 

When  the  disciples  saw  Jesus,  they  thought  they 
saw  a  spectre,  and  their  cry  of  terror  led  Him  to 
speak  and  to  reassure  them.  According  to  John  (vi. 
19),  when  they  saw  Jesus,  He  seemed  to  be  drawing 
near  to  the  boat,  and  according  to  Mark  (vi.  48),  it 
looked  as  though  He  was  passing  by  them.  It  is  cer- 
tain however  that  He  was  coming  to  their  relief,  for 
otherwise  His  walking  on  the  lake  would  be  unintelli- 
gible; and  if  He  was  passing  by,  this  must  be  under- 
stood not  as  showing  a  settled  purpose  to  leave  them, 
but  as  a  temporary  expedient  designed  in  some  way 
for  their  good.  It  is  possible  that  Jesus  refrained 
from  coming  directly  toward  the  ship  because  that 
would  have  frightened  the  disciples  more  than  His 
merely  passing  by.  When  near  enough  to  speak,  He 
reassured  them  by  his  calm  words,  and  entered  into 
the  boat.  The  wind  soon  ceased,  and  according  to 
John  they  were  straightway  at  the  land. 

Weiss^  finds  no  adequate  purpose  for  this  miracle, 

I  Das  Lebefi  Jesit,  ii.  21 1-2 13. 


2l6        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

and  therefore  reduces  the  historical  basis  to  a  provi- 
dential appearance  of  Jesus  on  the  shore.  Just  when 
the  disciples  saw  Jesus,  they  reached  the  land,  and  so 
it  sccDicd  as  though  His  presence  saved  them,  and 
later  what  seemed  to  them  miraculous  actuall}- 
assumed  \.\\^  form  of  a  miracle. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  there  are  difficulties  con- 
nected with  the  miracle,  but  this  hypothesis  of  Weiss 
seems  to  make  more  and  greater  ones.  There  is 
small  probability  that  fishermen  like  Peter,  accus- 
tomed for  years  to  this  lake,  should  not  have  known 
in  a  bright  night  whether  they  were  near  the  shore, 
and  small  probability  that  all  should  have  been  con- 
vinced that  Jesus  was  on  the  water  when  in  reality  He 
was  on  the  land. 

It  may  be  held  that  this  miracle  has  as  plain  and 
as  adequate  an  aim  as  has  any  one  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ.  For  in  a  signal  and  impressive  way  it  showed 
Him  as  the  divine  deliverer.  It  is  true  that  the  lives 
of  the  disciples  are  not  said  to  have  been  in  peril,  and 
it  is  altogether  probable  that  they  \fould  have  come 
safely  to  the  shore,  had  not  Jesus  come  to  them;  but 
they  were  certainly  in  a  condition  to  appreciate  help, 
and  that  was  reason  enough  for  Christ  to  help  them. 
If  there  was  not  adequate  reason  for  this  miracle,  then 
there  was  not  adequate  reason  for  the  miracle  of  feed- 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  2  1/ 

ing  the  five  thousand.  It  was  not  a  matter  of  Hfe 
and  death  that  they  should  have  bread  that  evening 
when  Christ  fed  them. 

Of  course  Peter  did  not  walk  on  the  water  to  Jesus 
and  then  back  to  the  boat  with  Him,  if  Jesus  Himself 
was  not  on  the  lake  but  on  the  shore,  and  so  Weiss^ 
regards  this  narrative  as  an  allegory  (Matt  xiv.  28- 
31).  He  objects  to  it  because  it  is  not  in  Mark,  but 
he  thus  assumes  that  Peter  must  have  related,  in  his 
preaching,  everything  about  himself,  and  assumes  that 
^lark  must  have  recorded  everything  that  he  heard 
from  Peter.  But  we  have  no  right  to  make  these 
assumptions.  He  objects  to  it  also  on  the  ground 
that  the  Gospel  of  John  leaves  no  place  for  it  (John 
vi.  21).  For  John  says  that  when  the  disciples  wished 
to  take  Jesus  on  board,  the  ship  was  immediately  at 
land,  and  therefore  there  was  no  chance  for  Peter  to 
walk  on  the  water.  But  the  force  of  this  argument  is 
not  quite  apparent.  Peter's  experiment  belongs  at 
the  end  of  John  vi.  20,  and  itself  constituted  a  part  of 
the  reason  why  the  disciples  were  willing  to  take  Jesus 
into  the  boat,  for  it  reassured  them  that  what  they 
saw  was  really  the  Lord.  The  following  statement 
that  they  were  iininediately  at  land  after  Jesus  entered 
the  boat,  can  not  possibly  be  construed  to  mean  that, 

I   Das  Lcben  Jesu,  ii.  214,  Note. 


2l8  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

before  He  entered  it,  they  were  so  near  to  land  that 
there  was  no  room  for  Peter's  act.  For,  on  the  one 
hand,  six  rods  of  lake  would  amply  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  narrative,  and  on  the  other,  the  state- 
ment of  John  that  they  were  immediately  at  land, 
would  be  natural  enough  even  if  they  rowed  fifty  or  a 
hundred  rods.  After  hours  of  conflict  with  the  waves, 
a  quiet  row  of  fifty  rods,  ivith  Jesus  on  board,  would 
seem  as  nothing. 

As  against  these  objections  of  Weiss,  it  should 
also  be  noticed  that  the  narrative  is  perfectly  in  accord 
with  the  character  of  Peter.  It  was  like  him  to  try 
to  walk  on  the  water,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  any  one 
would  have  thought  of  inventing  such  a  daring  deed 
of  faith.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  the  story,  if  invented, 
could  have  come  into  circulation  as  history  at  the 
early  date  when  the  first  Gospel  was  composed. 

(^)  Raising  the  Dead,  (i)  Circumstances.  The 
first  two  cases  of  raising  the  dead  occurred  in  the  first 
part  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  but  for  convenience  the 
later  case  may  also  be  considered  here.  There  are 
but  three  cases  in  the  record  of  Christ's  work,  and  the 
general  statement  in  Matthew  xi.  5,  made  when  but 
one  person  had  been  raised  from  the  dead,  is  not  to 
be  regarded  as  implying  other  undescribed  cases.  The 
daughter    of    Jairus    in    Capernaum,   the  son    of    the 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  219 

widow  of  Nain,  and  Lazarus  of  Bethany,  are  the 
three  whom  Jesus  raised  (Mark  v.  22-24,  35-435  Mt. 
ix.  18-19,  23-26;  Luke  viii.  41-42,  49-56,  vii.  11-17; 
John  xi.  1-44).  Of  these  one  had  just  died,  one  was 
being  borne  to  the  grave,  and  one  had  been  buried 
four  days.  In  each  case  Jesus  addressed  the  departed, 
and  summoned  him  or  her  back  to  hfe.  In  neither 
case  was  Jesus  asked  to  raise  the  dead.  When  Jairus 
came  to  Him,  his  daughter  was  at  the  point  of  death, 
and  all  that  he  asked  was  healing  (so  in  Mark  and 
Luke).  The  widow's  son  was  raided  out  of  compassion 
for  her,  but  unsolicited.  Mary  and  Martha  did  not 
ask  Jesus  to  raise  their  brother,  but  asked  Him  to 
come  while  Lazarus  was  sick.  No  one  ever  asked 
Jesus  to  raise  the  dead. 

The  Gospels  represent  these  three  persons  as 
actually  dead,  but  the  question  is  still  raised,  how  much 
is  necessarily  meant  by  that  statement.  Had  the  soul 
departed  to  the  spirit  world,  or  was  it  still  held, 
though  by  ever  so  slight  a  bond,  to  its  old  tabernacle  ? 
Beyschlag  ^  speaks  of  these  cases  as  being  on  the  dark 
border-land  between  the  here  and  the  hereafter,  and 
inside  the  period  in  which  according  to  antiquity  the 
body  and  the  soul  were  not  yet  wholly  separated  from 
each  other.      He  says  that  one  who  holds  the  histori- 

I   Das  Leben  Jesu,  i.  298. 


220        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

cal  character  of  the  narratives  must  assume  that  the 
condition  of  these  persons  was  not  that  of  complete 
death,  and  that  the  sundering  of  body  and  spirit  was 
not  yet  irrevocable.  If  the  soul  had  already  awakened 
in  another  world,  to  another  sort  of  existence,  it 
could  never  again,  he  says,  feel  at  home  in  this  world, 
however  mightily  it  may  have  been  called  back. 

But  this  statement  is  not  wholly  satisfactory. 
Plainly,  death  might  be  complete  and  the  separation 
of  body  and  soul  irrevocably  accomplished,  and 
yet  the  soul  not  have  awakened  to  another  sort  of 
existence.  We  are  certainly  at  liberty  to  think  that 
in  these  three  cases  the  spirit  had  not  entered  upon 
tliat  other  sort  of  existence.  But  it  does  not  follow 
that  death  was  not  complete,  or  that  body  and  soul 
were  not  irrevocably  sundered,  as  far,  that  is,  as 
human  power  was  concerned.  These  three  persons 
were  dead  both  in  the  estimate  of  their  friends  and  of 
Jesus,  and  this  means  that,  without  divine  interven- 
tion, body  and  soul  were  irrevocably  sundered. 

(2)  The  Miracle.'  Although  Jesus  was  not  asked 
to  raise  the  dead,  perhaps  because  it  seemed  too  great 
a  thing  to  ask,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this 
was  harder  for  Him  than  any  other  miracle.  He 
raised  the  dead,  as  He  wrought  other  signs,  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.      In  connection  with  the  resurrection  of 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  22  1 

Lazarus,  it  is  plainly  implied  that  the  miracle  was  in 
answer  to  Christ's  prayer  (John  xi.  41-42).  He 
wrought  the*  miracle  not  by  virtue  of  inherent  omnip- 
otence, but  through  faith.  ^  It  required  divine  power, 
but  so  did  all  the  signs  of  Jesus. 

But  while  not  more  difficult  than  the  other  signs, 
this  one  had  especial  significance,  as  appears  from 
the  narrative  of  the  consequences  in  the  three  in- 
stances. The  report  of  the  raising  of  Jairus'  daughter 
went  forth  into  all  that  region  (Matt.  ix.  26);  the 
report  of  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  went  through 
all  Palestine  and  the  adjacent  lands  (Luke  vii.  17); 
and  John  states  that  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus 
led  many  Jews  to  believe  on  Jesus,  an  effect  not 
recorded  in  connection  with  any  other  miracle  of 
Jesus.  Hence  Hase  calls  this  the  most  successful  of 
all  the  miracles.  The  miracle  of  raising  the  dead, 
while,  like  the  other  signs,  it  showed  Jesus  as  the 
divine  helper,  was  of  special  value  as  a  confirmation 
of  His  word  that  He  could  raise  those  dead  in  sin  into 
a  new  and  higher  life  (John  v.  25),  and  that  He  would 
raise  His  disciples  at  the  last  day  (John  vi.  40).  As 
a  sign  it  pointed  to  a  profounder  spiritual  truth  than 
was  contained  in  the  ordinary  miracles  of  healing. 
For  it  showed  Jesus,  not  as  the  restorer  of  the  old  life, 

I   This  is  plainly  taught  also  in  Mark  ix.  23-29. 


222  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

but  as  one  able  to  impart  new  and  eternal  life.    He  said 
that  He  was  the  life  (John  xiv.  6),  that  He  came  to  give 
life  (John  x.   lo);  and  when  He  called  Lazarus  forth 
from  the  tomb  that  was  the   mightiest  proof  of  the 
truth  of  His^  word  which  could  be  given  to  the  senses. 
{h)     The  Opposition.      The  first   part  of  the  Gali- 
lean  ministry  was  comparatively  free   from   effectual 
interference  with  the  work  of  Christ,  yet  it  was  by  no 
means  a  springtime  of  unclouded  success.      Through- 
out these   three   months,  but  more  especially  toward 
their  close,  the  word  of  Jesus  was  illustrated  that    He 
came  not   to  send  peace  but   a  sword  (Matt.  x.  34). 
There  were  three  classes  of  opponents.      First,  there 
were  the  demonized.      At  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Galilean    ministry  one   of    the  possessed   ones   stood 
up  against  Jesus  in  the  synagogue,  and  declared  that 
he    and  Jesus  had   nothing  in   common  (Mark  i.  24). 
There  was  a  spirit  of  opposition  in  his  words.      When 
Jesus  commanded  the  demon  to  come  out,  it  tore  the 
man    as   though   seeking   to   destroy   him,    and  so   to 
thwart  the  beneficent    design   of    the   Lord   (Mark  i. 
26).      On  another  occasion,    the   one  who  had  been 
possessed  was  left  by  the   demon  as  dead  (Mark  ix. 
26).      The  manifest  aim  of  the  demons  was  the  aim 
of  the  prince  of  the  demons,  opposition  to  Christ,  the 
enslavement  and  destruction  of  men. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  223 

Second,     the    unbelieving    among    the    common 
people.      Christ  sought  to  win  the  hearts  of  men,  and 
all   unbelief  was  opposition.      The  disobedient  leper 
prevented  Christ  from  entering  into  cities,  to  continue 
His    ministry    (Mark   i.    45).      Christ's    own    brothers 
sought  to  lay  hold  upon  Him,  saying  that  He  was  out 
of  His   mind   (Mark  iii.    21).      The   people   of   Gersa 
besought  Him   to  depart   from   their  coasts   after  He 
had    wrought    a    beneficent    miracle     (Mark    v.    17). 
People  in    Capernaum  who   had   had   opportunity  to 
know  most  of  His. wisdom   and   power,  laughed  Him 
to  scorn  in  the  house  of  Jairus  (Mark  v.  40).      In  His 
own  town  of  Nazareth,  the   people   were  offended  in 
Him  (Mark  vi.  3).      The  parable  of  the  sower  prob- 
ably reflects  Christ's  own  experience  in  this  first  part 
of   the    Galilean    work.      Among    His   hearers,    some 
were  wholly  unreceptive,  like  the  hard  ground  by  the 
wayside;  others  promised  well  at  first,  but  soon  were 
offended;  yet  others  received  His  word  with  only  half 
a  heart. 

Finally,  there  was  the  opposition  of  scribes  and 
Pharisees.  From  the  first,  almost,  this  opposition 
was  active.  It  was  not  mere  passive  unbelief,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  common  people.  Their  influence 
with  the  masses  was  threatened  by  the  new  teacher, 
and  they  were  quick  to  see  that  self-interest  required 


224       '  THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

them  to  oppose  Him.  They  complained  that  He  ate 
with  pubHcans  and  sinners  (Mark  ii.  i6),  and  that  He 
allowed  His  disciples  to  pluck  ears  of  corn  on  the 
Sabbath  (Mark  ii.  23).  The  tax-gatherers,  Jews  who 
accepted  office  uhder  the  hated  Roman  government, 
and  sinners,  that  is  people  who  were  }iot  Pharisees,^ 
people  who  did  not  know  the  law  and  keep  it  as  did 
the  Pharisees  (John  vii.  49),  with  these  people  it  was 
a  sin  to  eat.  And  so  the  conduct  of  Jesus  who 
assumed  to  be  a  teacher,  appeared  to  the  scribes  very 
reprehensible.  He  openly  violated  one  of  their  sacred 
regulations.  Likewise  in  allowing  His  disciples  to 
pluck  ears  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath,  He  put  Himself  in 
opposition  to  their  laws,  for  they  had  decided  that  to 
pluck  ears  on  the  Sabbath  was  /lari'csfin^i^,  and 
harvesting  was  work,  and  work  on  the  Sabbath'-  was 
forbidden.  It  was  because  of  His  disregard  of  the 
Pharisaic  observance  of  the  Sabbath  thcit  the  oppo- 
sition to  Him  took  an  acute  forn^i,  and  His  enemies 
planned  to  kill  Him  (Mark  iii.  6).  This  is  plainly 
stamped  upon  the  Synoptic  narrative.  Mark,  Matthew 
and  Luke  have  each  two  notable  Sabbath  discussions, 
and  Luke  yet  two  more  that,  are  peculiar  to  himself, 
and  which    seem   to  belong  to  the  same  period  (Mark 

1  See  Schiirer,  jVeulcs/ameJitlichc  /.citgt'scJiiclUc,  ii.  330. 

2  See  Schiirer,  XcutcsiamentlicJic  Zcitgeschiclilc,  ii.  394. 


--D 


ii.  23-28;  Matt.  xii.  1-8;  Luke  vi.  1-5.  Mark  iii.  1-6; 
Matt.  xii.  9-14;  Luke  vi.  6-1 1.  Luke  xiii.  10-17; 
xiv.  1-6).  Jesus  allowed  His  disciples  to  pluck  ears 
of  corn  on  the  Sabbath,  and  when  called  to  acccount 
by  the  Pharisees  and  scribes,  defended  His  disciples 
by  an  appeal  to  Scripture.  He  healed  the  withered 
hand  on  the  Sabbath,  and  defended  the  act  by  an  ap- 
peal to  reason.  It  must  be  lawful  to  do  good  on  the 
Sabbath.  A  woman  who  had  been  deformed  for 
eighteen  years  He  healed  on  the  Sabbath,  and  when 
charged  with  violating  the  day  He  defended  the  act 
by  an  appeal  to  their  own  experience.  They  loosed 
oxen  and  asses  on  the  Sabbath,  to  give  them  water. 
Surely,  He  might  loose  a  daughter  of  Abraham,  whom 
Satan  had  bound.  Again,  He  healed,  on  the  Sabbath, 
a  man  who  had  the  dropsy,  and  justified  His  course 
by  appeal  to  the  experience  of  His  hearers.  They 
did  not  hesitate  to  lift  a  child  or  an  ox  out  of  a  pit  on 
the  Sabbath.  But  that  was  work,  no  less  than  His 
healing  the  sick  man. 

How  bitter  the  hatred  was,  which  His  disregard  of 
Pharisaic  Sabbath  ordinances  occasioned,  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  it  led  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  to 
join  hands  for  His  destruction,  who  yet  were  hostile 
toward  each  other.     For  the  Pharisees  were  religiously 

opposed  to  the   Roman  rule  over   Palestine,  but  the 
15 


2  26         THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

Herodians  favored  it   as  they  favored   whatever   was 
acceptable  to  the  Herodian  house. 

One  of  the  first  attempts  of  the  enemies  to  carry 
out  their  plan  was  the  charge  that  Jesus  wrought  His 
signs  by  Satanic  aid  (Mark  iii.  22-30).  They  hoped 
in  this  way  to  discredit  Him  with  any  of  the  common 
people  who  were  following  Him.  If  their  accusation 
was  believed,  it  would  at  once  destroy  Jesus'  influ- 
ence. But  He  pointed  out  the  absurdity  of  saying 
that  Satan  would  cast  out  Satan,  and  then  intimated 
that,  instead  of  being  in  league  with  Satan,  He  had 
bound  him,  and  consequently  was  able  to  cast  out  de- 
mons. Another  accusation  was  made  by  the  Pharisees 
in  this  early  period,  namely,  that  Jesus  was  a  glutton 
and  winebibber  (Luke  vii.  32-34)  and  thus  unworthy 
of  any  respect  from  the  people  as  a  teacher.  The 
Pharisees  themselves  were  abstemious,  fasting  twice  in 
the  week  (Luke  xviii.  12),  and  hence  the  life  of  Jesus, 
which  in  the  matter  of  eating  and  drinking  we  may  sup- 
pose to  have  been  normal,  was  far  from  their  standard. 

Thus  there  was  open  hostility  between  Jesus  and 
the  religious  leaders  during  the  first  part  of  the  Gali- 
lean ministry  (cp.  also  Matt.  vi.  5;  vii.   15). 

(i)   The  Mission  of  the  Twelve,      (i)    The  Mission  of 
the  Tzvelve  and  the  Mission  of  the  Seventy,      Weiss^ 

I   Das  Lehen  Jesii,  ii.  381. 


11/ 

and  Beyschlag^  identify  the  mission  of  the  twelve 
apostles  and  the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples.  The 
grounds  for  this  identification  are,  first,  that  the 
address  to  the  seventy  in  Luke  x.  is  the  same  in  sub- 
stance and  often  in  expression  as  that  which  in  Mark 
and  Matthew  is  directed  to  the  twelve;  and  second 
(Weiss),  the  address  given  in  Luke  x.  presupposes 
that  the  disciples  were  to  work  permanently  and  inde- 
pendently, which  does  not  agree  with  the  view  that 
they  were,  as  Luke  says,  messengers  to  announce  the 
approach  of  Jesus,  but  does  accord  with  the  mission 
of  the  twelve;  and  third  (Beyschlag),  since  the  mission 
of  the  disciples  was  to  all  Israel,  it  would  require  the 
seventy  messengers  mentioned  by  Luke.  Twelve 
would  scarcely  have  been  sufficient. 

These  writers  suppose  that  Luke  found  a  second 
and  modified  report  of  the  mission  of  the  twelve  and 
thought  it  the  report  of  an  independent  mission. 
According  to  Beyschlag,  Jesus  began  by  sending  out 
the  twelve  apostles,  and  then,  perhaps  on  the  next 
day,  sent  out  other  disciples  to  the  number  of  sev- 
enty. 

There  are  however  some  objections  to  this  view. 
It  is  true  that  the  instructions  which  Luke  says  Jesus 
gave  to  the  sevent}-  are  substantially  the  same  which, 

I   Das  Lehen  Jesn,  i.  261;   ii.  225. 


228  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

according  to  Matthew,  are  found  in  Christ's  address  to 
the  twelve.  But  the  importance  of  this  fact  is  over- 
estimated by  these  writers.  If  Jesus  sent  His  disciples 
out  on  two  different  occasions,  to  do  essentially  the 
same  work,  we  should  not  be  surprised  if  He  gave 
them  practically  the  same  instructions.  This  fact  of 
itself  would  not  prove  that  the  mission  of  the  seventy- 
was  identical  with  that  of  the  twelve.  It  is  easier  to 
assume  that  Luke's  address  to  the  seventy  is  out  of 
its  original  place,  is  really  the  address  to  the  twelve, 
than  to  hold  that  the  mission  of  the  seventy  is  not 
independent. 

In  regard  to  the  second  point,  that  the  address  in 
Luke  X.  presupposes  a  permanent  and  independent 
work  of  the  disciples,  which  does  not  suit  the  con- 
nection in  which  the  address  stands,  it  must  be  said, 
first,  that  this  argument  has  no  force  unless  we 
assume  that  Jesus  intended  to  go  rapidly  to  Jerusa- 
lem. But  we  have  no  right  to  make  such  an  assump- 
tion. It  was  yet  six  months  before  Jesus  entered 
Jerusalem  for  the  last  time.  Part  of  this  interval  He 
spent  in  Jerusalem,  and  part  in  Perea.  The  idea  of 
Luke  (x.  51)  seems  to  have  been  that  when  the  Gali- 
lean work  was  done  and  Jesus  left  Galilee  forever, 
He  henceforth  had  His  death  in  Jerusalem  con- 
stantly   in   view.       But    Luke    may    have     had    this 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  229 

thought  while  knowing  that  there  were  yet  several 
months  of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus.  But  further, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  mission  of  the  twelve 
in  Galilee  was  not  permanent  but  quite  temporary. 
Probably  it  was  accomplished  within  a  month. 

As   to   the   remaining   point,   that  twelve  were  too 
few    for    the   mission   and   seventy   a    more   probable 
number,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as   having  much  force, 
for   it   seems   most   likely  that  the   mission  was  con- 
fined to   Galilee.      It  is  not  probable  that  Jesus  would 
have  sent   these  inexperienced  disciples  to  Judea  and 
Jerusalem,  where  even  He  Himself  had  thus   far  been 
unable   to    make   any    salutary  impression.      But    we 
cannot  say    that    twelve    disciples    were  too    few    to 
accomplish  what   Jesus  wished  to  have  done  in   Gali- 
lee.     These  grounds,   therefore,    for  the  identification 
of   the  two  missions  do  not   appear  conclusive.      On 
the   other   hand,    there   are  various   circumstances   in 
connection   with   the    mission    of    the   seventy  which 
seem  to  point   plainly  to   an  event   different  from  the 
mission  of  the  twelve.      Thus,  in  the  first  place,  Luke 
puts  the  mission  of  the  seventy  at  Christ's  final  depart- 
ure from   Galilee,  but  the   mission    of  the  twelve  was 
in    the     midst    of   the    Galilean   work   (Luke   x.     13). 
Again,  Luke  says  that  the  Lord  sent  forth  the  seventy 
before  His  face,  whither  He  was  about  to  come;   but 


230        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

there  is  no  indication  in  connection  with  the  mission 
of  the  twelve  that  Jesus  expected  to  visit  the  places 
whither  they  went.  It  is  pretty  certain  that  He  did 
7tot  visit  many  of  them.  Third,  it  is  not  easy  to 
account  for  the  change  from  twelve  to  seventy  if  the 
same  mission  is  referred  to.  If  the  mission  of  the 
seventy  was  eminently  successful,  as  Luke  relates, 
then  it  is  the  more  remarkable  that  Mark  and  Mat- 
thew, when  speaking  of  the  same  mission,  make  no 
allusion  to  more  than  twelve  messengers.  Finally, 
according  to  Mark  and  Matthew  (Mark  x.  i ;  Matt.  xix. 
2),  when  Jesus  came  into  Pe.rea,  great  multitudes  fol- 
lowed Him.  Now  since  Jesus  had  not  worked  in  this 
region,  their  statement,  if  it  does  not  clearly  presup- 
pose some  such  mission  as  Luke  x.'  records,  at  least 
favoi's  the  historical  character  of  Luke's  narrative. 

(2)  The  Instructions  to  the  Tivclvc.  Mark  and  Luke 
give  a  brief  account  of  Christ's  instructions  to  the 
twelve;  Matthew  gives  a  long  account  (Mark  vi.  7-13; 
Luke  ix.  1-6;  Matt.  x.).  But  Matthew's  account  can 
not  be  regarded  as  wholly  suiting  the  occasion.  "Some 
parts  of  it  must  have  been  spoken  by  Jesus  at  other 
times  than  when  the  apostles  were  sent  out  in  Galilee. 
So,  for  example,  the  passage  in  which  it  is  said  that 
the  disciples  shall  be  brought  before  governors  and 
kings,  also  that  they  shall  be  persecuted  in  one  city 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  23 1 

and  flee  into  another.  These  statements  concern  the 
future  and  independent  work  of  the  disciples,  and  not 
their  tour  in  GaHlee.  They  were  not  brought  before 
kings,  nor  persecuted  from  city  to  city,  nor  beaten  in 
synagogues.  They  were  not  at  that  time  as  sheep  in 
the  midst  of  wolves.  When  they  went  through  Gali- 
lee healing  the  sick  and  casting  out  demons,  they 
must  have  been  welcome  and  popular,  as  Jesus  always 
was  when  He  dispensed  physical  blessings. 

In  the  original  instructions  to  the  twelve  Jesus 
seems  to  have  emphasized  two  points.  First,  they 
were  to  go  in  dependence  on  God.  They  were  not  to 
take  bread  or  money  with  them.  The  laborer  was 
worthy  of  his  hire.  It  is  thought  possible  that 
some  towns  would  not  receive  their  message,  but  even 
in  such  cases  there  might  be  individuals  who  would  be 
friendly  toward  them,  and  who  would  provide  for 
their  bodily  needs.  Second,  they  were  to  go  in  haste. 
They  must  not  burden  themselves  with  two  coats. 
They  must  stay  in  the  first  friendly  house  which  they 
enter  till  their  work  in  a  particular  town  is  done. 
Thus  they  were  to  regard  their  mission  as  an  urgent 
one. 

Weiss^  thinks  this  mission  of  the  twelve  was  a  house 
to  house  mission,  doubting  whether  they  were  quali- 

I   Das  Leben  Jesti,  ii.  128. 


232        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

fied  to  appear  in  the  synagogues.  But  as  they  were 
given  authority  to  heal  the  sick  and  cast  out  demons, 
and  were  commissioned  to  announce  the  near  approach 
of  the  kingdom,  it  seems  probable  that  they  did  not 
in  anywise  seek  privacy,  but  went  where  they  could 
reach  the  largest  numbers,  and  so  in  all  probability 
did  not  avoid  the  S3'nagogues. 

(3)  The  Tour.  It  is  probable,  as  we  have  seen, 
that  the  twelve  went  forth  only  through  Galilee.  The 
time  spent  on  this  mission  can  have  been  only  a  few 
weeks.  For  the  disciples  were  back  again  with  Jesus 
before  he  fed  the  multitudes  at  the  northeast  corner 
of  the  lake,  which,  as  we  know,  occurred  just  before 
the  Passover  (Mark  vi.  34;  John  vi.  4).  The  feast  of 
Purim,  which  Jesus  attended,  or  during  which  He  was 
in  Jerusalem  (John  v.  i),  came  a  month  before  the 
Passover.  Since  now  we  know  that  Jesus  was  for  a 
time  separated  from  the  twelve  just  before  the  mira- 
cle of  the  loaves  (Mark  vi.  30),  and  since  there  is  no 
evidence  that  they  were  with  Him  in  Jerusalem  at  the 
feast  of  Purim,  it  seems  most  likely  that  He  sent  the 
twelve  forth  just  before  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 

The  reason  of  the  mission  may  well  have  been  the 
crisis  which  Jesus  saw  approaching,  and  His  desire 
that  all  should  be  prepared  to  act  intelligently  when 
that   crisis   should    come.       He    was    being    hindered 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    FIRST    PART.  233 

more  and  more  in  his  work  by  the  opposition  of  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  and  by  the  misguided  zeal  of  those 
who  wished  to  make  Him  a  poHtical  Messiah.  He 
could  not  personally  reach  all  in  Galilee,  and  there- 
fore He  sent  His  disciples  to  continue  His  work. 


CHAPTER   XL 
In  Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of  Purim. 

(<^)  In  General.  It  seems  probable,  as  has  been 
said,  that  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem  while  His  dis- 
ciples were  absent  on  their  mission  in  Galilee.  There 
is  no  indication  that  He  went  to  Jerusalem  in  order  to 
attend  the  feast  of  Purim,  which  moreover  is  intrin- 
sically improbable.  This  was  not  a  feast  enjoined  by 
the  law,  but  was  of  late  origin,  in  celebration  of  the 
deliverance  of  the  Jews  by  Esther.  It  was  celebrated 
on  the  14th  and  15th  of  the  month  Adar  with  general 
rejoicing.  But  the  fact  that  the  Jewish  people  were 
refusing  the  greater  deliverance  which  Jesus  was  offer- 
ing them  must  have  made  these  days  to  Him  a  time 
of  sorrow  rather  than  joy.  However,  the  circum- 
stance that  Jesus  would  find  no  pleasure  in  this  feast 
is  no  proof  that  He  did  not  go  to  Jerusalem  at  this 
time.  It  may  well  have  been  a  favorable  opportunity 
to  go  to  Jerusalem,  even  though  He  had  no  interest  in 
the  feast.      This  moreover  lasted  only  two  days,  and 

the  probability  is  that  Jesus  was  in  Jerusalem  at  least 

(234) 


IN    JERUSALEM    AT    THE    FEAST    OF    PURIM.         235 

as  many  weeks.  The  objection  of  Edersheim  then,  that 
because  Jesus  could  have  had  no  interest  in  the  Purim 
feast,  therefore  we  cannot  suppose  that  He  visited  Je- 
rusalem at  the  time  of  the  feast,  is  without  force/ 

Jesus  went  to  Jerusalem  after  an  absence  of  nine 
or  ten  months,  presumably  to  continue  His  Messianic 
work.  He  cannot  have  remained  very  long,  for  before 
the  Passover  which  came  a  month  later  than  the 
Purim  feast.  He  was  again  in  Galilee  (John  vi.  1-4). 
We  know  of  one  miracle  which  He  wrought  at  this 
time,  and  from  the  controversy  that  it  occasioned  we 
can  infer  what  the  relation  was  between  Jesus  and  the 
religious  leaders. 

{h)  The  Bethesda  Sign.  Both  in  itself  and  in  its 
consequences  the  miracle  wrought  upon  the  man  who 
had  been  nearly  helpless  for  thirty-eight  years  is  nota- 
ble (John  V.  2-9).  Jesus  here  singled  out  one  from  a 
multitude  who  were  sick,  blind,  halt,  and  withered, 
and  healed  him.  Nothing  like  this  is  recorded  by  the 
Synoptists.  The  impression  which  they  make  is  that 
Jesus  healed,  as  it  were,  for  the  sake  of  healing.  He 
healed  great  numbers  of  sick  people.  Here  the  exer- 
cise of  His  miraculous  power  is  more  plainly  for  a  si^n, 
and  for  this  end  the  healing  of  one  person  is  as  good 
as  would  be  the  healing  of  several. 

I  L/fe  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  ii.  768. 


236        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

It  is  noticeable  also  that  this  man  at  the  pool  was 
healed  by  one  who  was  a  total  stranger  to  him.  He 
did  not  know  that  it  was  Jesus  (John  v.  13J.  Plainly 
then  if  he  had  a  faith  which  at  all  conditioned  his  cure, 
it  was  a  faith  in  Jesus  without  knowing  that  it  ivas 
Jesus,  a  trust  in  the  manifest  kindness  of  a  stranger. 
The  interest  which  the  unknown  man  took  in  him 
perhaps  awakened  some  degree  of  expectancy,  so  that 
when  Jesus  told  him  to  rise,  he  was  ready  to  try. 

The  miracle  was  wrought  on  a  Sabbath,  and  this 
fact  led  at  once  to  the  persecution  of  Jesus,  as  His 
healing  the  withered  hand  in  Galilee  led  the  Pharisees 
and  Herodians  to  plot  His  death  (Mark  iii.  6).  Hos- 
tility toward  Jesus  was  increased  by  His  saying  that 
God  was  His  Father  (J»ohn  v.  18).  After  this  the  Jews 
sought  to  kill  Him.  Yet  now,  as  at  a  later  time,  they 
were  apparently  hindered  from  proceeding  against  Him 
openly  by  fear  of  the  common  people  (Mark  xiv.  2), 
and  He  was  able  to  remonstrate  against  their  actions 
in  public  and  to  defend  His  own  course. 

In  the  record  of  His  words  spoken  on  this  occa- 
sion, the  prominent  thought  is  His  Messianic  claim. 
He  said  that  God  was  His  Father  (John  v.  17,  19), 
and  that  what  the  Father  did  He  also  did  (John  v.  20). 
He  claimed  power  to  quicken  the  dead,  and  authority 
to  judge  all  men  (John  v.  21,  22).      He  said  that   He 


IN  JERUSALEM  AT  THE  FEAST  OF  PURIM.    2  3/ 

had  life  in  Himself,  and  that  those  who  believed  in 
Him  also  had  eternal  life  (John  v.  24-26).  In  support 
of  this  Messianic  claim,  He  appealed  to  the  witness  of 
John  (John  v.  33),  to  His  own  works  which  the  Father 
had  given  Him  to  do  (John  v.  36),  to  the  witness  of 
the  Father,  perhaps  referring  to  the  divine  voice  at  His 
baptism  (John  v.  37),  and  to  the  Scriptures  (John  v. 
39,  40,  45-47)- 

When  Jesus  said  that  God  was  His  Father,  the 
Jews  at  once  inferred  that  He  made  Himself  equal 
with  God  (\o\\w\.  18).  It  is  very  noteworthy  that 
Jesus  repudiated  this  inference.  Instead  of  making 
Himself  equal  with  God,  as  they  understood  that  word, 
He  declares  that  He  is  wholly  dependent  upon  God. 
"  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself."  But  if  He  is 
thus  dependent  on  God,  then  the  Jews'  inference  that 
He  made  Himself  equal  with  God  is  false.  The  claim 
that  God  is  His  Father,  and  His  Father  even  in  a  unique 
sense  that  separates  Him  from  all  other  men,  is  not  a 
claim  to  absolute  equality  with  God.  It  involves  a 
claim  to  Messiahship,  as  does  the  parallel  title  Son 
of  God  (John  v.  25),  but  that  is  plainly  different  from 
the  claim  which  they  thought  He  made  for  Himself. 
Indeed,  Jesus  says  in  this  address  that  one  of  His 
Messianic  prerogatives,  that  of  judging  men,  is  given 
Him  because  He  is  a  son  of  man  (John  v.  27),  that  is, 


238  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

on  the  ground,  not  of  His  divinity  but  of  His  human- 
ity, an  attribute  which  the  Jews  thought  He  repudi- 
ated when  He  said  that  God  was  His  Father.  Then, 
further.  He  says  that  His  authority  to  judge  has  been 
given  Him  by  the  Father,  and  also  His  abiHty  to 
communicate  Hfe  (John  v.  22,  26).  Had  the  inference 
of  the  Jews  been  correct,  these  prerogatives  would 
have  belonged  to  Jesus  by  virtue  of  His  very  being. 

The  polemical  part  of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the 
Jews  on  this  occasion  (John  v.  37  b-47)  throws  a 
clear  light  on  His  view  of  the  Messianic  element  in 
the  Old  Testament.  He  claims,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  Scriptures  in  general  bear  witness  of  Him 
(John  v.  39),  and  also  that  Moses  in  particular  wrote 
of  Him  (John  v.  46).  He  accordingly  saw  a  Messianic 
element  in  the  law  as  well  as  in  the  prophets.  Further, 
He  claimed  that  if  the  Jews  had  believed  Moses,  they 
must  have  believed  Him  also.  In  other  words,  He 
was  conscious  of  being  the  counterpart  of  the  pro- 
phetic element  in  the  law.  Of  course,  the  Jews  sup- 
posed that  they  believed  Moses,  and  they  did  in  a 
way;  but  Jesus  denied  that  they  truly  believed  him. 
From  this  it  follows  that  believing,  as  He  used  the 
term,  contains  an  element  of  spiritual  perception. 
The  Jews  did  not  really  believe  Moses,  because  the}' 
did  not  see  the  spiritual   aim  of   his   teaching.      They 


IN    JERUSALEM    AT    THE    FEAST    OF    PURIM.        239 

did  not  understand  him.  In  like  manner,  men  could 
not  truly  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  unless  they 
spiritually  perceived  that  His  character  and  work  ivere 
Messianic. 

(t)  \l\lith  a  Pharisee  at  Meat.  We  must  hold  that 
Jesus  was  twice  anointed,  for  it  is  impossible  with 
Holtzmann,^  for  example,  to  identify  the  event  in 
Bethany  with  the  scene  described  by  Luke  (vii. 
36-50).  It  is  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  the  host 
in  both  cases  bore  the  name  Simon  (Mark  xiv.  3; 
Luke  vii.  40);  that  in  both- cases  it  was  a  woman  who 
anointed  Jesus;  and  that  both  women  brought  an 
alabaster  box  of  ointment.  But  over  against  these 
coincidences  are  numerous  and  varied  and  great  dif- 
ferences. Thus,  in  one  case,  the  anointing  is  among 
friends  (John  xii.  1-2);  in  the  other,  it  is  in  the  house 
of  a  Pharisee,  who  had  no  real  sympathy  with  Jesus; 
and  the  guests  at  the  table  are  offended  that  Jesus 
should  assume  to  forgive  sin  (Luke  vii.  39-49).  In 
one  case,  the  woman  is  an  intimate  friend  of  Jesus 
(John  xii.  3;  xi.  5),  in  the  other  she  is  a  notorious 
sinner,  who,  in  the  hour  of  the  anointing,  first  experi- 
ences forgiveness  of  sins  (Luke  vii.  ij ,  47).  In  the 
one  case,  the  act  is  defended  by  Jesus  as  a  preparation 
for   His   burial    (Mark  xiv.  8);  in  the   other,    it  is  the 

I   /land-Com7nentaj',  Johanneisches  Ex'angelium,  p.  143. 


240        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

expression  of  a  love  and  faith  which  secure  forgive- 
ness of  sins  (Luke  vii.  47,  50).  But  this  enumeration 
of  differences  may  suffice.  The  situations  and  motives 
are  too  diverse  to  allow  room  for  the  theor}^  of  identi- 
fication. 

The  event  described  by  Luke  in  chapter  vii.  36-50, 
and  perhaps  also  the  feast  of  Luke  xiv.  1-6,  may 
be  placed  with  the  Bethesda  sign  in  the  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem at  the  time  of  the  Purim  feasts  At  the  later 
visits  in  Jerusalem,  the  attitude  of  the  Pharisees  was 
so  hostile  that  we  cannot  readily  think  of  Jesus  as 
being  invited  to  a  social  meal  in  a  Pharisee's  house. 

This  event  is  variously  interesting  for  the  biog- 
raphy of  Jesus.  With  the  w^edding  in  Cana  (John  ii. 
i-ii),  the  feast  in  the  house  of  Levi  (Mark  ii.  15-17), 
the  banquet  by  one  of  the  chief  Pharisees  (Luke  xiv, 
1-6),  and  the  dinner  given  by  Simon  (Mark  xiv.  3-9), 
it  shows  that  Jesus  was  ready  to  accept  invitations  to 
social  feasts.  He  was  no  wilderness-prophet,  no 
recluse  or  ascetic.  But  He  did  not  attend  these 
feasts  for  pleasure.  They  were  opportunities  for  self- 
revelation,  and  were  so  used  by  Jesus.  The  present 
occasion  in  the  house  of  the  Pharisee  shows  how 
quickly  Jesus  perceived  the  spiritual  meaning  of  pass- 
ing  incidents,    and  with   what   ease  He  could  express 

I  See  Beyschlag,  Lchoi  Jcsn,  i.  263;  ii.  230-232. 


IN    JERUSALEM    AT    THE    FEAST    OF    PURIM.         24 1 

and  apply  that  meaning.  The  tears  and  kisses  and 
ointment  bestowed  upon  Him  by  the  woman  were 
proof  of  her  "much  love,"  and  so  were  proof  that 
she  felt  in  her  heart  that  her  many  sins  were  for- 
given. Her  love  and  sacrifice  argue  that  she  had 
received  help  from  Him  ;  and  this  help  must  have 
been  such  as  always  came  to  sinners  who  believed  His 
gracious  word.  Simon,  on  the  other  hand,  had, 
shown  Him  little  love,  and  so  must  have  had  little 
sense  of  indebtedness  to  Him.  In  order  to  teach  the 
lessons  which  He  saw  ought  to  be  taught,  Jesus  did 
not  hesitate  to  rebuke  His  host  even  in  the  midst  of 
a  social  gathering. 


16 


CHAPTER     XII. 
The  Galilean  Ministry:    Second  Part. 

{a)  General  View.  The  second  part  of  the  Gah- 
lean  ministry  extended  from  shortly  before  the  second 
Passover  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles;  in  round  num- 
bers about  six  months.  The  fullest  record  of  it  is 
contained  in  Matthew  and  Mark.  John  has  less  than 
a  chapter  in  regard  to  it,  and  Luke  also  relatively 
little. 

Jesus  still  wrought  miracles,  but  fewer,  compara- 
tively, than  in  the  first  part  of  the  Galilean  ministry. 
Popular  enthusiasm  reached  its  height  at  the  very 
beginning  of  this  period,  when  an  attempt  was  made 
to  force  Jesus  to  become  a  king.  This  was  the  turn- 
ing-point of  the  Galilean  ministry  as  a  whole.  From 
this  time  forward  Jesus  devoted  Himself  more  and 
more  to  His  disciples.  Thus  the  second  part  of  the 
Galilean  ministry  contained  a  larger  element  of  teacJi- 
ing  than  the  first,  and  more  time  was  spent  in  private 
with  the  disciples  than  was  given  to  them  in  the  earlier 

period.      It  was  also  in  the  second  part  of  the  Galilean 

( 242 ) 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  243 

ministry  that  Jesus  began  to  teach  His  disciples  in 
regard  to  His  death  and  resurrection. 

{b)  The  Height  of  Galilean  Popularity,  {i)  Return 
of  the  Disciples.  Soon  after  Jesus  had  come  back 
from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee  His  disciples  returned 
from  their  mission,  and  met  Him  at  some  place  on 
Lake  Galilee,  probably  Capernaum  (Mark  vi.  32-33). 
They  reported  what  they  had  done  and  taught,  appar- 
ently dwellmg  on  the  miracles  which  they  had  wrought 
in  Christ's  name  (Mark  vi.  30;  Luke  ix.  10).  But 
there  was  little  opportunity  for  Him  to  talk  with  them 
about  their  work,  for  He  seems  to  have  been  thronged 
by  the  sick  as  soon  as  it  was  known  that  He  had 
returned  to  Capernaum,  and  as  in  the  earlier  days  He 
still  healed  them  (John  vi.  2;   Mark  vi.  31). 

Two  circumstances  led  Him  to  withdraw  from 
Capernaum  and  from  the  multitudes  who  thronged 
Him.  First,  He  wished  that  His  disciples  should 
have  rest  for  a  little  while  (Mark  vi.  31).  They  had 
refreshed  others;  now  they  in  turn  should  be  refreshed. 
A  second  circumstance  which  may  have  influenced 
Jesus  to  withdraw  from  Capernaum  was  of  a  political 
nature  (Matt.  xiv.  13).  Herod  had  heard  reports  con- 
cerning Jesus,  and  in  the  last  weeks  had  probably 
heard  much  of  His  name  by  reason  of  the  miracles 
and  words  of  the  twelve  disciples  (Mark  vi.   14;   Luke 


244  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

ix.  y).  It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  disciples  had 
visited  Tiberias,  Herod's  capital,  on  the  southwest  side 
of  Lake  Galilee.  At  any  rate,  he  was  much  per- 
plexed, and  sought  to  see  Jesus  (Luke  ix.  9;.  Jesus 
learned  of  this,  and  withdrew  to  a  place  outside  the 
jurisdiction  of  Herod,  namely,  Bethsaida  Julias  (Luke 
ix.  10).  This  was  in  the  domain  of  Philip.  Jesus 
had  no  desire  to  meet  the  man  who  had  just  mur- 
dered His  forerunner  (Matt.  xiv.  1-12).  He  under- 
stood his  character  and  judged  it  best  to  keep  away 
from  him. 

(2)  The  Crisis.  (2a)  The  Occasion  of  t/ic  Miracle. 
Jesus  and  His  disciples  had  no  sooner  started  b}'  boat 
for  the  eastern  side  of  the  lake  than  the  people  per- 
ceived it;  and  judging  of  their  destination  from  the 
course  they  had  taken,  many  set  out  from  Caper- 
naum on  foot  determined  that  the  worker  of  miracles 
should  not  escape  from  them.  As  the  crowd  moved 
along  the  thickly-populated  northwest  shore  of  the 
lake  it  rapidly  increased.  Mark  says  that  people 
joined  it  from  all  the  cities  (Mark  vi.  33V  Some 
went  with  such  speed  that  the}'  reached  the  point 
toward  which  the  boat  of  Jesus  was  directed  before  it 
came  to  land  (Mark  vi.  33).  Others  must  have  gone 
more  slowly,  for  they  took  their  sick  with  them  (Matt, 
xiv.   14).      When   Jesus  and  His  disciples  had  reached 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    FART.  245 

the  high  ground  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  (John  vi. 
3),  a  great  multitude  were  soon  gathered  before  Him. 
This  seems  to  have  been  early  in  the  day.  for  He 
taught  them  numy  things  (Mark  vi.  34),  and  healed 
their  sick  (Matt.  xiv.  14),  before  evening  had  come. 
When  it  began  to  grow  dark,  the  disciples  wished 
Jesus  to  send  the  throngs  away  that  they  might  get 
themselves  food.  But  He  had  a  different  thought  for 
the  multitude;  and  although  it  was  a  thought  of  love, 
it  had  very  grave  consequences. 

(2  b)  TJlc  Miracle.  All  four  evangelists  agree  that 
the  provision  which  was  put  into  the  hands  of  Jesus 
was  five  loaves  of  bread  and  two  fishes  (John  vi.  9; 
Luke  ix.  13;  Mark  vi.  38;  Matt.  xiv.  i/j.  The  dis- 
ciples seem  to  have  bought  these  loaves  and  fish  of  a 
boy  who  chanced  to  be  present.  They  had  left 
Capernaum  in  haste,  and  seem  to  have  taken  nothing 
with  them.  Apparently  they  bought  the  loaves  and 
fish  ^?//^';' Jesus  asked  what  they  had.  All  the  evangel- 
ists agree  that  there  were  about  five  thousand  men 
who  ate  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  and  Matthew  says 
there  were  also  women  and  children.  Mark  and  Luke 
say  that  the  multitudes  were  seated  in  a  methodical 
way,  though  they  do  not  agree  as  to  the  size  of  the 
different  companies.  Luke  says  there  were  about 
fifty    in    each    group,    Mark    says    they    were    seated 


246  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

b}'  hundreds  and  by  fifties.  This,  however,  is  an 
unimportant  detail.  The  estimate  of  the  total  num- 
ber, for  it  was  only  an  estimate,  was  five  thousand. 

All  the  evangelists  agree  that  when  the  multitudes 
had  eaten  until  they  were  satisfied,  the  disciples  took 
up  the  fragments,  at  Jesus'  direction  (John),  and 
found  that  there  were  twelve  baskets  of  these.  Each 
disciple  filled  his  basket.  Mark  is  particular  to  notice 
that  there  were  fragments  of  \\\^  fish  left  as  well  as  of 
the  bread. 

The  meaning  of  the  miracle  was  the  same  as  the 
meaning  of  all  the  miracles.  It  showed  Christ  as  the 
divine  helper  of  men  who  are  in  need.  It  concerned 
the  physical  man  directly,  like  the  miracles  of  healing; 
but  those  who  were  spiritually  hungry  might  draw 
from  it  the  easy  inference  that  this  Jesus  could  feed 
their  souls  as  well  as  their  bodies. 

(2  c)  Rcecnt  Attempt  to  Explain  the  Miracle.  Bey- 
schlag^  says  it  is  unnatural  to  suppose  that  cooked 
bread  and  roasted  fish  increased  in  the  hands  of  Jesus. 
He  began  to  feed  the  multitude  with  the  five  loaves 
and  two  fishes,  believing  that  God  in  some  way  would 
provide  for  the  entire  company,  and  His  generous 
example  opened  the  hearts  of  those  who  had  provis- 
ions, and  they  brought  them  to  His  feet.     This  act,  he 

I  Das  [.cbcn  Jesu,  i.  310. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.         24/ 

says,  was  as  much  to  the  glory  of  God  and  of  Christ  as 
though  He  had  miraculously  increased  the  loaves  in 
His  hands.  This  is  also  essentially  the  view  of  Weiss\ 
He  says  the  narratives  do  not  speak  of  a  miracle  of 
creation,  and  we  are  at  liberty  to  think  that  the 
miracle  was  one  of  providence.  Christ's  example  led 
others  to  give  of  their  provisions.  Keim''  also  thinks 
of  the  actual  event  in  much  the  same  way. 

Now  it  is  conceivable  that  the  example  of  Jesus 
might  influence  men  in  the  way  which  this  explana- 
tion supposes,  but  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the 
text  with  this  explanation.  For,  first,  the  evangelists 
know  of  only  five  loaves  and  two  fishes.  If  an  indefi- 
nite amount  of  provisions  had  been  furnished  in 
addition  to  this,  we  should  expect  some  reference  to 
it  in  one  or  the  other  of  four  narratives  which  claim 
to  be  historical  John  says  that  the  twelve  baskets  of 
fragments  were  taken  up  from  the  five  barley  loaves. 
This  seems  to  exclude  any  other  provision.  Second, 
the  evangelists  regard  the  act  of  Jesus  as  a  great 
miracle,  but  if  we  reduce  it  to  the  influence  of  His 
example,  however  beautiful  and  significant  that  might 
be,  then  it  is  no  longer  a  miracle  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment  sense   of  that   word.      Third,  it   is   improbable 

1  Das  Leben  Jesii,  ii.    193. 

2  Jesus  of  N^azara,  iv.    194. 


248  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

that  people  on  their  way  to  Jerusalem,  assuming  with 
these  writers  that  there  were  many  such  in  the  crowd 
(see  John  vi.  4),  would  have  carried  their  baskets  of 
provision  aside  into  this  desert  region  south  of  Beth- 
saida  Julias.  If  there  were  many  festal  pilgrims  in 
the  multitude,  it  is  not  likely  that  they  turned  aside 
from  the  road  to  Jerusalem  unless  they  did  so  for  a 
very  brief  halt,  perhaps  for  a  few  hours,  and  in  that 
case  they  would  hardly  have  taken  any  unnecessary 
luggage  with  them.  Fourth,  it  is  not  conceivable 
that  these  Galilean  multitudes  who  had  seen  many 
miracles  of  Jesus  should  have  been  roused  to  an 
unparalleled  enthusiasm  on  this  occasion,  as  they  were, 
if  the  act  of  Jesus  was  nothing  more  than  a  generous 
example.  The  Jews  of  Jesus'  time  were  stirred  by 
miracles,  but  they  were  not  of  such  a  spiritual  char- 
acter that  they  would  see  evidence  of  Messiahship  in 
a  self-denying  deed. 

{2  d)  Consequences  of  the  Miracle.  When  the  people 
realized  what  Jesus  had  done,  they  said,  "This  is  of 
a  truth  the  prophet  that  cometh  into  the  world  "  (John 
vi.  14).  Jesus  saw  that  they  would  attempt  to  take 
Him  by  force  and  make  Him  king.  There  must  have 
been  intense  excitement.  The  people  knew  Jesus 
well  enough  to  be  certain  that  He  would  not  willingly 
head   an   insurrection,    and   allow  Himself  to  be  pro- 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.         249 

claimed  as  the  political  deliverer  of  His  people;  but 
they  fancied  that  they  might  constrain  Him  even 
against  His  will  to  carry  out  their  Messianic  ideal. 

In  this  hour  of  excitement  Jesus  sent  His  disciples 
away,  manifestly  against  their  wish  (Mark  vi.  45). 
He  could  deal  more  easily  with  the  multitude  if  no 
complications  arose  in  connection  with  His  disciples. 
It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  some  of  them  were  in 
danger  of  .being  swept  away  by  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
crowd.  It  is  one  of  the  highest  proofs  of  the  remark- 
able power  which  Jesus  possessed  to  control  men,  that 
He  was  able  to  send  these  multitudes  away  (Matt, 
xiv.  23),  or  withdraw  from  them  (John  vi.  15),  when 
their  hearts  were  set  on  Him,  and  when  they  were 
ready  to  resort  to  force  to  accomplish  their  wish. 

(3)  The  Synagogue- Address  in  Capernaum.  The 
day  following  the  miracle  at  Bethsaida,  Jesus  was  in 
the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  and  spoke  to  some  of 
the  people  who  had  wished  to  take  Him  by  force  and 
make  Him  king  (John  vi.  25-58).  His  words  now 
damped  their  enthusiasm  as  much  as  His  miracle  on 
the  day  before  had  aroused  it.  He  represented  Him- 
self as  the  bread  out  of  heaven,  better  than  the  manna 
of  Moses.  When  the  Jews  murmured  because  He 
said  that  He  had  come  down  out  of  heaven.  He  went 
on  and  expressed   His  thought  more  explicitly,  saying 


250  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

that  Yiis  flesh  was  the  true  bread,  and  that  unless  a 
man  ate  it  he  could  not  have  eternal  life.  As  they 
had  no  spiritual  apprehension  of  Christ's  meaning, 
they  were  yet  more  offended  by  this  word.  Many  of 
those  who  had  been  His  disciples  left  Him  in  conse- 
quence of  this  address  in  the  synagogue.  He  was  not 
at  all  the  Messiah  of  their  hopes,  but  seemed  rather 
as  a  dreamer. 

It  is  important  to  notice  that  in  this  address  which 
so  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  faith  in  Jesus,  and 
which  alludes  to  His  death,  there  is  yet  involved 
no  specific  conception  of  the  value  of  that  death.  The 
reference  to  eating  His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood 
anticipates  His  death,  and  naturally  implies  its  neces- 
sity. But  this  necessity  is  defined  by  His  own  inter- 
pretation of  the  terms,  eating  His  flesh  and  drinking 
His  blood.  These  expressions  are  synonymous  with 
believing  o\\  Him  (John  vi.  35.  53).  They  set  forth 
the  idea  of  vital  faith  in  a  concrete  manner.  Faith 
in  Him  is  appropriation  of  Him.  To  appropriate 
Him  it  is  necessary  to  understand  Him,  and  in  order 
that  He  may  be  understood  He  lays  down  His  life 
(John  viii.  28;  x.  11).  This  is  not  His  complete 
thought  in  regard  to  His  own  death,  but  it  is  the  only 
thought  which  is  here  brought  forward. 

The  turning  from  Jesus  at  this  time  was  so  general 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.         25 1 

that  He  asked  the  twelve  whether  they  also  would  go 
away  (John  vi.  66-6']).  He  was  determined  to  know 
who,  if  any  one,  was  still  true  to  Him.  It  must  have 
been  plain  to  Jesus  at  this  time  that  hope  for  the 
people  as  a  whole  was  vain.  They  had  no  hunger  for 
the  bread  which  He  offered,  and  He  could  not  awaken 
this  hunger. 

(0     The    Last   General   Messianic  Work  in   Galilee. 

(i)  E?iemies  frojti  the  Capital.  Both  Matthew  and 
Mark  record  a  meeting  between  Jesus  and  certain 
Pharisees  and  scribes  who  came  down  from  Jerusalem 
(Mark  vii.  1-23;  Matt.  xv.  1-20).  The  place  of  this 
encounter  is  not  indicated,  nor  the  exact  time.  It 
seems,  however,  to  have  occurred  in  the  last  days 
before  Jesus'  retirement  from  Galilee.  These  men 
had  plainly  come  from  Jerusalem  with  hostile  intent, 
and  from  their  coming  we  may  infer  that  the  recent 
visit  of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  had  stirred  up  the  adver- 
saries afresh,  and  impressed  them  anew  with  the 
dangerous  character  of  their  Galilean  rival. 

The  point  on  which  they  challenged  Jesus  was  the 
non-observance  by  His  disciples  of  the  traditional 
rules  of  purification  (Mark  vii.  5).  As  at  an  early 
day  they  had  neglected  the  Pharisaic  fasts  (Mark  ii. 
18-22),  so  now  they  neglect  the  ceremonial  washing 
of  the   hand   before    eating,    on   which   the   Pharisees 


252        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

laid  the  greatest  stress.  Under  the  influence  of  Jesus, 
but  without  any  positive  command  from  Him,  they 
gradually  dropped  Pharisaic  ceremonialism,  as  at  a 
later  day,  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  the  dis- 
ciples gradually  dropped  the  ceremonialism  of  the  Old 
Testament  itself. 

Jesus  in  His  reply  to  the  Pharisees  declared  that 
their  traditions  were  in  direct  violation  of  the  law  of 
God.  This  required,  for  example,  that  children 
should  honor  their  parents;  but  tradition  allowed  chil- 
dren to  dishonor  father  and  mother  by  giving  to  the 
temple  what  belonged  of  right  to  them  (Mark  vii.  10- 
13).  These  traditions  of  the  scribes  were  plants 
which  His  heavenly  Father  had  not  planted  (Matt. 
XV.  13),  and  it  was  His  purpose  that  they  should  be 
rooted  up.  Then,  in  the  hearing  of  the  multitude, 
He  declared  that  nothing  from  without  could  defile  a 
man,  but  only  the  things  from  within.  It  followed 
from  this,  of  course,  that  a  man  could  not  be  defiled 
w^ho  ate  food  which  he  had  touched  with  unwashed 
hands.  This  saying  scandalized  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  and  perplexed  even  the  disciples  (Matt.  xv. 
12;  Mark  vii.  17).  It  was  a  sort  of  riddle  to  them, 
which  He  afterward  explained.  Yet  Jesus  had  not 
controverted  the  Levitical  law  in  saying  that  nothing 
could   defile  a  man.      He   only  went   deeper  than    its 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.         253 

letter.  He  was  aiming  at  purity  of  heart,  and  not  at 
ceremonial  cleanness.  The  words  spoken  in  private 
to  His  disciples  regarding  the  Pharisees  suggested  that 
He  had  no  hope  for  them  (Matt.  xv.  14).  "  Let  them 
alone,"  He  said.  "  They  are  blind  leaders  of  blind 
ones,  and  both  shall  fall  into  a  pit." 

(2)  The  Last  Public  Tour  in  Galilee.  There  was 
a  short  interval  between  the  critical  day  in  Capernaum 
and  Jesus'  retirement  from  Galilee,  and  in  it  Jesus 
continued  His  public  Messianic  work,  though  this  was 
mingled  now  with  words  of  judgment.  This  was  the 
last  wholly  public  working  of  miracles  in  Galilee. 
Jesus  wrought  isolated  cures  later,  but  in  a  private 
manner. 

This  last  tour  is  touched  very  briefly  by  Mark  and 
Matthew  (Mark  vi.  53-56;  Matt.  xiv.  34-36).  It 
seems  to  have  begun  at  least  on  the  northwest  shore 
of  the  lake,  but  the  language  of  Mark  suggests  that 
it  was  continued  elsewhere.  He  speaks  of  Christ's 
entering  into  cities  and  villages  and  country-seats. 
This  sounds  like  a  summary  of  an  extended  tour. 
Wherever  Jesus  went,  people  had  one  desire  only,  as 
had  been  the  case  with  the  masses  all  along,  and  that 
desire  was  for  material  help.  They  brought  Him 
their  sick,  but  no  one  ever  asked  Him  for  forgiveness 
of  sins. 


2  54  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

It  must  have  been  when  He  was  leaving  the  lake 
at  this  time  that  He  spoke  words  of  condemnation 
and  threatening  over  the  lake  cities  (Matt.  xi.  20-24; 
Luke  X.  13-16).  Chorazin  here  appears  for  the  first 
time.  Mighty  works  had  been  done  there  by  Jesus, 
but  what  they  were  or  when  they  were  wrought,  we 
do  not  know.  The  woes  spoken  by  Jesus  over 
Chorazin,  Capernaum,  and  Bethsaida,  contain  His 
estimate  of  the  value  of  His  labors  in  these  unrepent- 
ant cities.  Capernaum  had  been,  as  it  were,  exalted 
to  heaven  in  privilege.  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin  had 
closed  their  eyes  to  deeds  so  manifestly  Messianic 
that  they  had  made  their  sin  greater  than  that  of  the 
heathen  Tyre  and  Sidon.  So  Jesus  left  His  adopted 
home  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  not  to  return 
again  as  a  public  teacher. 

It  seems  probable,  on  the  whole,  that  it  was  in 
the  following  days  that  Jesus  paid  the  visit  to  Nazareth 
of  which  Luke  gives  us  so  vivid  a  picture  (Luke  iv. 
16-30;  Mark  vi.  1-6;  Matt.  xiii.  53-58).^  It  inwardly 
suits  the  close  rather  than  the  beginning  of  the 
Galilean  ministry.  For,  in  the  first  place,  it  repre- 
sents Jesus  as  openly  claiming  to  be  the  Messiah 
(Luke  iv.  21),  while  elsewhere  in  the  Synoptists  there 

I  Comp.  Weiss,  Das  Leberi  Jcsti,  ii.  245.  Beyschlag  (i.  256) 
puts  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.         255 

is  nothing  like  a  public  verbal  claim  to  Messiahship 
till  late  in  the  ministry.  Then,  again,  the  tone  of  the 
latter  part  of  His  address  is  such  a  tone  of  warning 
and  judgment  as  meets  us  at  the  close  of  the  Galilean 
ministry  (Matt.  xi.  20-24).  He  likens  Himself  to 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  His  hearers  to  the  unbelieving 
Jews  of  their  days.  As  Elijah  relieved  but  one  widow, 
and  she  a  Sidonian,  and  as  Elisha  cleansed  but  one 
leper,  and  he  a  Syrian,  so  is  it  now  with  Jesus.  The 
people  of  Nazareth  are  rejecting  Him;  the  Galileans 
as  a  whole  have  already  turned  from  Him.  He 
reaches  a  soul  only  here  and  there,  as  was  the  case 
with  the  prophets.  This  language  suits  the  close  of 
the  Galilean  period,  but  not  its  beginning.  Finally, 
the  fact  that  His  towns-people  tried  to  /'///  Him  is 
more  readily  understood,  if  the  visit  came  at  the  close 
of  the  work  in  Galilee,  after  they  had  heard  how 
hostile  their  religious  leaders  in  Jerusalem  were 
toward  Him,  and  how  the  people  of  Capernaum  and 
the  adjoining  towns  had  turned  from  Him,  than  it  is 
if  it  came  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Galilean  period. 
Therefore  we  are  to  think  of  the  rejection  in  Nazareth 
as  following  closely  upon  the  rejection  in  Capernaum. 
Thus  it  helps  to  explain  why  Jesus,  in  the  next  days, 
withdrew  for  the  first  time  to  heathen  soil. 

{d)     On  Heathen  Soil,     (i)    TJie  Purpose  and  Course 


256  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

of  the  Journey.  It  had  become  plain  in  the  last  days 
that  the  Galileans,  for  whom  Jesus  had  wrought  and 
taught  during  several  months,  would  not  accept  Him. 
His  ministry  for  them  was  practically  ended.  He 
knew  well  that  He  could  hope  for  little  from  any 
future  work  in  Judea,  where  the  Jews  had  already 
sought  to  kill  Him  (John  v.  18),  and  whence  they  had 
sent  emissaries  to  thwart  and  if  possible  ruin  Him  in 
Galilee  (Mark  vii.  i).  So  the  thought  of  the  outcome 
of  His  own  personal  ministry  must  have  become  clearer 
in  the  last  days,  and  at  the  same  time  the  thought 
of  the  continuation  of  His  work  by  His  disciples 
would  naturally  assume  increasing  prominence  in  His 
mind.  And,  indeed,  from  this  time  we  find  that  He 
devotes  Himself  much  more  than  formerly  to  His  dis- 
ciples. Hence  we  are  to  hold  that  the  chief  purpose 
of  His  present  retirement  to  Gentile  soil  was  that  He 
might  be  alone  with  His  disciples.  This  is  confirmed 
by  the  remark  of  the  second  evangelist  that  when 
Jesus  came  into  the  borders  of  Tyre  He  did  not  wish 
to  have  it  known  (Mark  vii.  24). 

Jesus  passed  through  some  part  of  the  territory  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon  (Mark  vii.  31),  then  probably  took 
the  Damascus  road  over  the  Lebanon  range,  and  after 
crossing  the  mountains  He  followed  some  southerly 
road  which  brought   Him    at    last  to   the  east  coast  of 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.         2  5/ 

Lake  Galilee  (Mark  vii.  31),  This  tour  of  at  least  a 
hundred  miles  must  of  necessity  have  occupied  sev- 
eral days,  and  may  have  occupied  weeks. 

(2)  The  Canaanitish  Woman.  On  the  border  of 
Gentile  territory  Jesus  wrought  the  first  miracle  in 
behalf  of  a  heathen  (Mark  vii.  24-30;  Matt.  xv.  21- 
28).  He  had  healed  the  servant  of  the  centurion  in 
Capernaum,  but  it  is  quite  probable  that  this  centu- 
rion was  a  proselyte.  Jesus  was  not  inclined  to  hear 
the  woman's  prayer,  but  her  persistency  prevailed 
with  Him,  and  He  granted  her  request.  In  His  say- 
ing that  it  was  not  meet  to  take  children's  bread  and 
cast  it  to  dogs.  He  did  not  lower  Himself  to  the  level 
of  Jewish  prejudice  and  call  the  woman  a  Gentile 
dog.  This  interpretation  of  the  words  would  be 
wholly  contrary  to  the  gentleness  and  breadth  of 
Christ's  sympathy.  But  Jesus  declared  in  a  figura- 
tive manner  that  it  would  be  inappropriate  for  Him 
to  enter  on  Messianic  activity  among  the  heathen. 
He  was  sent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel 
(Matt.  XV.  24).  Therefore,  were  He  to  work  mira- 
cles of  healing  for  the  Gentiles,  as  this  woman  re- 
quested, it  would  be  as  much  out  of  order  as  for  a 
man  to  take  his  children's  bread  and  cast  it  to  dogs. 
The  time  had  not  yet  come  to  give  the  Gospel  to  the 

Gentiles. 
17 


258  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

{e)  Signs  Sought  and  Given  in  Decapolis.  On  the 
east  of  the  lake,  in  the  territory  of  Philip,  in  a  region 
where  Jesus  had  not  been,  unless  indeed  it  was  the 
region  of  Gersa,  where  He  had  healed  the  demonized 
one  (Mark  v.  1-20),  He  now  tarried  some  time  after 
His  northern  tour.  Of  the  incidents  belonging  to  this 
visit  three  at  least  have  been  preserved  by  Mark  and 
Matthew. 

(i)  SigJis  Given.  Matthew  records  that  Jesus 
wrought  at  this  time  miracles  of  healing,  and  that  the 
people  in  consequence  glorified  the  God  of  Israel 
(Matt.  XV.  29-31).  His  statement  that  multitudes 
came  to  Jesus  implies  that  He  had  already  been  in 
the  region  some  time,  for  the  region  was  sparsely  in- 
habited, and  time  was  required  for  great  multitudes 
to  gather,  especially  as  they  brought  with  them  all 
manner  of  sick  persons.  There  is  no  suggestion  in 
Matthew  that  Jesus  sought  privaey  at  this  time,  but 
on  the  contrary  He  seems  willingly  to  have  taken  up 
public  work. 

Mark  puts  in  this  period  and  region  a  miracle 
whose  attendant  circumstances  differ  from  those  of 
the  miracles  in  Matthew  (Mark  vii.  31-37J.  In  heal- 
ing a  deaf  and  dumb  man  Jesus  took  him  aside  pri- 
vateiy,  and  when  He  had  healed  him.  He  charged 
those  who  knew  of   the   miracle  not-  to  tell   any  man. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  259 

But  Mark  adds  that  the  injunction  of  Jesus  was  inef- 
fectual, and  that  the  miracle  was  published  abroad  in 
that  region. 

Since  Mark  proceeds  to  record  another  miracle 
which  was  wrought  in  public  (Mark  viii.  i-io),  and  in 
regard  to  which  Jesus  did  not  enjoin  secrecy,  it  seems 
probable  that  we  must  adopt  this  view  of  the  ministry 
in  Decapolis,  namely,  that  when  Jesus  arrived  in 
Decapolis  He  avoided  the  public  working  of  miracles, 
as  Mark  says  (vii.  36);  but  when  the  miracle  wrought 
in  private  became  widely  known,  and  the  effect  was 
seen  to  be  good  rather  than  the  reverse,  Jesus  worked 
openly  as  He  had  formerly  done  in  Galilee. 

Matthew  and  Mark  put  in  these  days  of  the  Decap- 
olis sojourn  the  miracle  of  feeding  four  thousand  (Mark 
viii.  I -10;  Matt.  xv.  32-39).  Weiss^  and  Beyschlag^ 
with  others,  identify  this  miracle  with  the  feeding  of 
five  thousand  which  is  recorded  by  all  the  evangelists. 
It  is  said  that  the  divergencies  are  incidental,  that  the 
disciples  could  not  have  been  so  helpless  a  second 
time,  if  Christ  had  already  wrought  one  miracle  of 
feeding,  and  that  the  consequences  of  the  first  miracle 
would  have  deterred  Jesus  from  repeating  it.  But  the 
divergencies  of   the  two  narratives  are  not  incidental. 

1  Das  Leben  Jesii,  ii.  191. 

2  Das  Lebeyi  Jesn,  i.  310-311. 


260  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

Thus  the  story  of  feeding  four  thousand  imphes  a 
differeiit  place  from  that  where  the  five  thousand  had 
been  fed.  In  the  record  of  the  first  miracle  of  feeding, 
it  is  intimated  that  the  disciples  could  get  food  if  they 
had  money;  while  in  the  second  story  the  difficulty  is 
said  to  be  that  the  place  was  desert,  and  that  conse- 
quently they  could  not  readily  find  food  even  if  they 
had  money.  Difference  of  place  is  also  favored  by  the 
fact  that  in  the  story  of  the  second  miracle  both  evan- 
gelists use  a  word  for  basket  different  from  that  which 
is  used  alike  by  all  four  evangelists  in  the  account  of 
the  feeding  of  five  thousand.  This  is  a  very  curious 
circumstance.  In  the  story  of  the  first  miracle  all 
the  evangelists  use  a  particular  Greek  word  for  basket 
{kophinos),  and  in  the  story  of  the  second  both  writers 
who  give  it  use  another  word  {spur is).  Later,  when 
Jesus  refers  to  the  two  miracles  and  asks  how  many 
baskets  of  fragments  the  disciples  took  up,  He  is  rep- 
resented as  using  both  words  as  they  had  been  used 
in  the  two  stories  (Mark  viii.  19-20;  Matt.  xvi.  9-10). 
The  explanation  of  this  fact,  which  I  offer,  is  that  the 
two  miracles  were  wrought  in  different  localities,  each 
of  which  had  its  own  peculiar  name  for  basket,  and 
that  these  local  names  clung  to  the  accounts  of  the 
respective  miracles.  Such  a  local  difference  might 
readily    be    assumed     to     have    existed    between    the 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  26 1 

speech  of  the  Gahleans  from  the  region  of  Capernaum 
and  the  half-heathen  population  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  lake. 

This  difference  of  scene,  of  which  we  have  spoken, 
removes  the  objection  that  the  consequence  of  the 
first  miracle  would  have  deterred  Jesus  from  working 
a  second  one.  The  five  thousand  were  Galileans  from 
the  west  side  of  the  lake,  while  the  four  thousand 
were  natives  of  Decapolis  on  the  east  side.  Because 
the  miracle  by  Bethsaida  Julias  had  caused  intense 
excitement,  in  which  the  people  wished  to  take  Jesus 
by  force  and  make  Him  king,  it  did  not  follow  that  a 
similar  miracle  would  have  the  same  effect  upon  the 
people  of  Decapolis. 

Tlie  objection  that  the  disciples  could  not  have 
been  so  helpless  in  a  second  time  of  need  is  refuted 
by  the  general  experience  of  the  disciples.  Immedi- 
ately after  the  first  miracle  of  feeding,  w^hen  Christ 
wrought  the  sign  of  walking  on  the  lake,  it  is  explicitly 
said  that  the  disciples  were  amazed  and  understood 
not  concerning  the  loaves  (Mark  vi.  52).  With  them 
as  with  men  of  all  times  it  was  easy  to  forget  past 
deliverances,  and  hard  to  believe  in  divine  interposi- 
tions in  their  behalf.  Hence  we  must  regard  the 
miracle  of  feeding  four  thousand  as  wholly  distinct 
from    the     miracle    near    Bethsaida    Julias.        It    is 


262         THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

biographically  important  because  it  suggests  that  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  in  Decapolis,  like  that  in  Galilee, 
was  one  of  mighty  signs  and  of  great  popular  interest. 

(2)  Signs  Sought.  Matthew  and  Mark  agree 
that  Jesus  took  boat  after  the  feeding  of  the  four 
thousand,  but  Matthew  says  that  He  came  into  the 
borders  of  Magadan  (Matt.  xv.  39),  while  Mark 
says  that  He  came  into  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha 
(Mark  viii.  10).  The  site  of  Magadan  is  wholly 
unknown,  since  it  is  not  to  be  identified  with  Mag- 
dala.  Dalmanutha  is  located  by  Robinson,  Thomp- 
son, and  others,  on  the  southeast  shore  of  Lake  Gali- 
lee, about  one  mile  north  of  the  Jarmuk.  The  village 
which  now  bears  the  name  Dclhemija  is  supposed  ta 
occupy  the  site  of  the  ancient  Dalmanutha.  There 
may  have  been  a  Magadan  in  the  same  district,  and 
as  Weiss  suggests,  Matthew  may  have  chosen  this 
name  as  more  familiar  to  his  readers. 

That  the  place  to  which  Jesus  went  after  the  mira- 
cle was  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  is  supported  alsa 
by  the  incidental  statement  of  Mark  viii.  11,  that  the 
Pharisees  came  forth  to  meet  Jesus.  This  is  best 
explained  as  coming  forth  from  what  they  considered 
to  be  the  holy  land  into  the  semi-Gentile  region  of 
Decapolis.  Further  evidence  of  a  positive  kind  that 
Dalmanutha  was  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  is  found 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  263 

in  the  verses  following  the  reference  to  Dalmanutha. 
In  Mark  viii.  13,  after  the  sojourn  at  Dalmanutha,  it 
is  said  that  Jesus  and  His  disciples  went  to  the  other 
side.  Now  if  Dalmanutha  was  on  the  west  side  of  the 
lake,  this  transit  must  have  been  to  the  east  side. 
But  this  is  impossible.  For  in  Mark  viii.  22,  while 
Jesus  and  His  disciples  are  on  this  other  side,  they 
come  to  a  BetJisaida,  and  He  heals  a  blind  man,  but  in 
as  private  a  manner  as  possible  (Mark  viii.  23,  26). 
Now  such  privacy  is  not  intelligible  if  Jesus  was  on 
the  east  side  of  the  lake,  for  He  has  just  wrought 
miracles  there  in  the  most  public  way.  But  it  is 
wholly  intelligible  if  the  Bethsaida  in  question  was 
the  western  Bethsaida,  for  Jesus  had  finished  His 
public  Messianic  work  in  Galilee,  and  had  spoken 
the  doom  of  this  very  Bethsaida  (Matt.  xi.  20-24). 

The  Pharisees  who  came  forth  to  meet  Jesus  were 
probably  from  Jerusalem,  like  those  who  had  recently 
followed  Him  to  Galilee  (Mark  vii.  i).  They  wanted 
a  sign  from  heaven,  naturally  a  sign  that  should  prove 
beyond  a  doubt  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  Of  \ 
course  they  did  not  believe  that  He  could  give  such 
a  sign,  and  they  hoped  to  use  against  Him  His  failure 
to  comply  with  their  request.  This  demand  of  the 
Pharisees,  made  in  the  face  of  all  the  great  miracles 
of  Jesus  and  in  the  face  of  His  divine  teaching,  showed 


264        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

their  irremediable  spiritual  blindness,  and  called  forth 
from  Jesus  severe  words  regarding  them  and  the  gen- 
eration in  general.  He  called  the  generation,  which 
they  so  well  represented,  evil  and  adulterous,  which 
language,  as  Weiss  remarks,  is  severer  than  any  pre- 
viously used.  Jesus  refused  the  sign  which  they 
sought,  but  intimated  (Matt.  xvi.  4)  that  a  sign  would 
be  given  at  some  future  day,  even  the  sign  of  Jonah.  ^ 
When  Jesus  uttered  this  mysterious  word,  He  must 
have  seen  clearly  that  He  was  to  be  put  to  death  and 
rise  again.  This  is  the  first  allusion  made  by  Him 
both  to  His  death  and  resurrection. 

But  although  Jesus  refused  the  desired  sign,  He 
did  not  leave  the  multitudes  without  intimating  who 
He  was  and  how  vital  was  a  right  relation  to  Him 
(Luke  xi.  31-32).  In  their  midst  was  one  greater 
than  Jonah  and  greater  than  Solomon.  The  Ninevites 
who  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah,  and  the 
queen  of  the  south  who  profited  by  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon,  would  rise  up  in  the  judgment  against  that 
generation  and  condemn  it,  naturally  because  it  did 
not  accept  Jesus. 

(/)  At  Caesarea  Philippi.  (\)  The  Confession  of 
Peter.      When   Jesus   left  the   Decapolis  and  came  to 

I  See  Erich  Haupt,  Die  Alttestamejitlicheyi  Citate  iyi  den  Vier 
Evangelien,  p.  170-173. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  265 

the  west  side  of  the  lake,  it  was  not  with  the  purpose 
of  resuming^  work  in  Gahlee.  Apparently  He  remained 
but  a  short  time  before  leaving  for  the  north.  He 
wrought  a  miracle  near  Bethsaida  (Mark  viii.  22),  but 
did  it  with  the  utmost  secrecy.  He  did  not  wish  to 
have  His  presence  known.  His  public  activity  in 
Galilee  was  at  an  end.  The  journey  with  His  disci- 
ples to  the  region  of  Caesarea  Philippi  seems  to  have 
been  undertaken  in  order  that  He  might  have  undis- 
turbed intercourse  with  them.  The  narrative  of  the 
journey  itself  abundantly  supports  this  view. 

On  the  way  across  the  lake,  as  Jesus  came  from  the 
Decapolis,  He  warned  His  disciples  against  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  and  Herod  (Matt. 
xvi.  6;  Mark  viii.  15).  No  particular  teaching  is 
referred  to,  but  it  would  seem  that  the  leaven  which 
Jesus  had  in  mind  was  the  leaven  of  unbelief.  There 
was  no  specific  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees,  Pharisees, 
or  of  Herod,  which  the  disciples  were  in  danger  of 
adopting.  But  all  these  people  were  alike  unbelieving 
as  regarded  the  claim  of  Jesus.  This  is  plain  in  the  case 
of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  and  the  attitude  of 
Herod  toward  the  forerunner  of  Jesus  shows  his  real 
attitude  toward  Jesus  Himself.  This  will  appear 
clearly  at  a  later  day.  The  warning  of  Jesus  suggests 
that  there  was  danger  lest  some  of  the  twelve  should 


266  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

become  unbelieving.      It  was  in  line  with  this  warning 
when  Jesus,  in  the  region  of  Caesarea  Philippi,    put   a 
test  question   to    His   disciples.      He  wished  to  know, 
and  wished  to  have  them   know,  exactly  where  they 
stood  in  regard  to  Him. 

He  led  up  to  this  test  question  by  asking  what 
people  in  general  were  thinking  and  saying  about  Him 
(Mark  viii.  27;  Matt.  xvi.  13;  Luke  ix.  18).  The 
answer  of  the  disciples  is  most  instructive,  and  shows 
how  Jesus  fell  below  the  popular  expectation  of  the 
Messiah.  Some  said  that  He  was  the  Baptist,  others 
Ehjah,  others  Jeremiah,  and  still  others,  whose  esti- 
mate of  Him  was  less  exalted,  said  that  He  was  one 
of  the  prophets  (Mark  viii.  28;  Matt.  xvi.  14).  The 
popular  idea  seems  to  have  been  that  the  spirit  of  one 
of  these  worthies  had  returned  to  earth  and  was 
working  in  Jesus  (comp.  Mark  vi.  14).  But  in  any 
case  the  answers  show  that  people  regarded  Jesus 
only  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah,  not  as  the 
Messiah   Himself. 

Then  came  the  test  question  to  the  disciples.  This 
was  not  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  a  hitherto 
unexpressed  belief  in  His  Messiahship,  but  to  ascer- 
tain whether  they  .y/z// believed  in  Him.  In  the  recent 
weeks,  it  had  become  plain  that  the  Galileans  as  a 
whole  would  not  accept   Him,  and   many  even  of  His 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  267 

disciples  had  turned  away  from  Him.  People  who 
had  previously  thought  that  He  might  be  the  Messiah 
were  now  saying  that  He  was  John  the  Baptist,  or 
Elijah,  or  one  of  the  prophets.  Jesus  wished  to  know 
whether  the  twelve  were  losing  faith  in  Him,  and  the 
confession  of  Peter,  who  acted  as  spokesman  of  the 
twelve,  simply  meant  that  he  still  held  Jesus  to  be  the 
Messiah.  It  is  not  a  confession  of  a  new  faith,  but  of 
loyalty  to  an  old  one.  This  does  not  imply  that  their 
conception  of  the  Messiah  had  remained  unchanged 
from  the  first.  That  was  surely  not  the  case.  If 
they  now  believed  Him  to  be  the  Messiah,  they  must 
have  given  up  their  early  Jewish  conception  in  some 
respects,  and  must  have  come  to  hold  a  more  spiritual 
view  of  the  Messiah's  work.  But  the  main  fact  which 
the  question  of  Jesus  brings  out  is  this,  that  while 
others  are  leaving  Him,  they  still  believe  in  Him. 

The  name  Pctei-,  which  Jesus  had  early  given  to 
Simon  (John  i.  42),  is  by  Peter's  confession  shown  to 
have  been  rightly  given.  He  has  remained  firm  as  a 
rock  while  others  have  been  as  sand.  Jesus  recognized 
that  this  firmness  of  faith  was  from  God  (Matt.  xvi. 
J  7).  For  it  rested  upon  a  spiritual  apprehension  of 
Jesus,  not  upon  any  evidence  that  He  would  yet  fulfil 
the  popular  conception  of  the  Messiah.  It  was  a  faith 
in  Him  as  one  sent  from  God,  and   because  it  rested 


268        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

wholly  upon   the    person    of  Jesus,  it  endured   in   the 
face  of  outward  failure. 

This    rock-man,    not    as    an    individual    but    as    a 
type,   Jesus  says  shall  be  the  basis  of    His   church. 
The    narrative    implies    that   the    other    apostles,   no 
less  than  Peter,    still   held  to  Jesus,    and  what  Jesus 
addressed    to    Peter     was    therefore     addressed     to 
the   Peter-spirit   in    all.      This   is   perfectly  confirmed 
by    the    subsequent    narrative    and   by   the    apostolic 
history.      Peter  was   not    recognized   subsequently  as 
having  any  official  primacy.      He  was  treated  by  Jesus 
exactly  as  were  the  other  apostles.      And  later  he  was 
not   the   head  of  the   church,  but   only    o-ne   of  three 
pillars  (Gal.  ii.  9).      What  is   promised  him   by  Jesus 
is  promised  him   as   the   first   representative   of  those 
who  should  have  the   same   rock-faith  in   Jesus.      He 
and  they,  as  Christ's  representatives,  should  bear  His 
Gospel  to  men,  and  thus  have  the  key  of  the  kingdom 
of    heaven    (Matt.    xvi.    19).      He    and  they,    as    the 
Church  of  Christ,  should  have  authority  to  loose  and 
bind,  and  their  acts  would  be  recognized  in  heaven  as 
authoritative    (Matt.  xvi.   19).      This   power   to   loose 
and  to  bind    may  be   identified    with  the   authority  to 
forgive   sins   and   to  refuse  forgiveness,  spoken  of    in 
John  XX.  23,  or  be  taken  in  a  more  general  sense. ^    In 

I  See  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  ii.  384. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  269 

view  of  Matt,  xxiii.  4;  v.  19,  Beyschlag  understands 
the  terms  as  used  in  the  talmudic  sense.  To  bind  is 
thus  to  declare  anything  to  be  obHgatory  or  forbidden; 
and  to  loose  is  to  declare  anything  to  be  not  obligatory, 
or  allowable.  The  purport  of  the  figurative  utterance 
is  that  the  Church,  as  the  representative  of  Christ,  is 
the  norm  of  truth  in  the  world.  It  is  this  as  the 
representative  of  Christ,  and  only  in  so  far  as  it  does 
represent  Him. 

It  is  here  in  connection  with  Peter's  confession 
that  Christ  first  speaks  of  His  church  (Matt.  xvi.  18). 
The  only  other  case  on  record  where  He  used  the 
term  is  Matt,  xviii.  17.  The  Church  in  the  first  passage 
is  something  future,  a  building  yet  to  be  built.  The 
multitudes  whom  He  had  healed  and  the  still  larger 
multitudes  to  whom  He  had  preached  the  kingdom  of 
God  were  not  in  this  Church.  The  term  which  He  used 
on  this  occasion  had  doubtless  the  same  essential 
meaning  as  the  kingdom  of  God  or.  kingdom  of  heaven.  ^ 
For  had  He  used  a  term  that  was  radically  different 
from  the  id^rmWdir  ki7tgdoin  of  heaven  and  yet  so  import- 
ant as  the  word  cJinrcJi  manifestly  is  in  this  passage, 
it  seems  altogether  probable  that,  either  by  more 
frequent  use  or  by  explanation.  He  would  have  sought 
to  make  the  difference  between  the  two  terms  plain  to 

I  See  Briggs,   The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  192. 


270        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

His  disciples.  But  there  is  no  explanation,  and  the 
term  is  found  in  but  one  Gospel,  and  there  on  but  two 
occasions,  on  one  of  which  it  plainly  has  a  universal 
sense  (Matt.  xvi.  18),  in  the  other  a  local  sense 
(Matt,  xviii.   17). 

Yet  while  the  term  used  by  Jesus  on  this  occasion 
must  have  had  essentially  the  same  force  as  kingdom 
of  God,  it  involved  this  difference,  that  kingdom 
of  God  looked  toward  the  whole  people  as  a  people, 
while  cJuircJi  contemplated  a  narrow  circle  within  a 
larger  one.^  This  thought  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that 
Jesus  had  now  been  virtually  rejected  by  the  nation 
as  a  whole,  and  His  subsequent  work  was  chiefly  for  a 
small  band  of  disciples.  What  He  had  formerly  said  of 
the  spirit  and  character  of  the  kingdom  was  still  to  be 
realized,  but  not  in  any  national  form;  it  was  to  be 
realized  in  the  company  of  His  disciples,  His  Church. 

Of  this  Church  yet  to  be  built,  He  says  that  the 
gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it  (Matt.  xvi. 
18).  Hades  is  not  hell,  and  the  reference  is  not  to 
the  adversaries  of  Christ.  Hades  is  the  place  to 
which  all  the  living  at  length  go.  It  prevails  over  all 
flesh  because  all  flesh  is  mortal,  but  it  shall  not  pre- 
vail over  the  Church  of  Christ.  This  shall  live  on, 
superior  to  death,  though  the  individual  falls. 

I  See  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  ii.  275. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  2/1 

(2)  The  Announcement  of  Death.  The  disciples' 
confession  of  loyalty  to  Jesus  prepared  the  way  for 
Him  to  speak  to  them  openly  of  His  approaching 
death  (Mark  viii.  31-32;  Matt.  xvi.  21;  Luke  ix.  22). 
He  had  brought  them  to  a  point  where  they  could 
bear  it,  or  at  least  would  not  be  caused  to  stumble  by 
it.  Jesus  did  not  refer  to  His  death  for  the  first  time 
at  Caesarea  Philippi.  He  had  alluded  to  it  before  in 
figurative  language.  He  had  spoken  of  the  removal 
of  the  bridegroom  (Mark  ii.  20),  of  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  of  His  body  (John  ii.  19),  of  the  lifting  up 
of  the  Son  of  man  (John  iii.  14).  and  of  giving  His 
flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world  (John  vi.  51).  But  not 
until  the  days  at  Caesarea  Philippi  did  He  speak 
plainly  and  unmistakably  of  His  death.  It  may  well 
be  that  while  He  had  hitherto  known  that  His  way 
would  be  one  of  suffering,  He  had  not  Himself  seen 
clearly,  as  He  did  now,  that  He  was  to  be  put  to 
death.  The  unfolding  of  this  thought  may  have  come 
gradually  with  the  experiences  of  the  Messianic  work. 
Galilee  had  rejected  Him,  Jerusalem  had  rejected 
Him.  The  Son  of  man  must  now  suffer  many  things, 
and  be  officially  rejected  by  the  Sanhedrin,  and  be 
put  to  death. 

The  announcement  by  Jesus  of  His  death  dis- 
closed the  fact  that,  although  Peter  was  loyal,  he  was 


272        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

still  ignorant.  If  he  had  risen  somewhat  above  the 
narrow  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah,  He  had  not 
yet  reached  Christ's  conception.  He  could  not  yet 
associate  death  with  his  Messiah.  Therefore  from 
this  time  forward  Jesus  spoke  with  His  disciples  again 
and  again  concerning  His  death.  Two  other  formal 
announcements  are  recorded  by  the  Synoptists  (Mark 
ix.  30-32;  X.  32-34,  Matt.  xvii.  22-23;  xx.  17-19; 
Luke  ix.  43-45;  xviii.  31-34).  The  second  of  the 
three  came  just  before  leaving  Galilee,  and  the 
third  was  made  in  Perea.  In  connection  with  the 
second  of  these  explicit  announcements,  Matthew 
says  that  the  disciples  were  exceeding  sorry,  Mark 
that  they  did  not  understand  the  word,  and  Luke  that 
they  feared  to  ask  of  Him  an  explanation.  Thus  they 
seem  to  have  had  a  presentiment  that  something  fear- 
ful was  to  befall  their  Master,  but  they  knew  not 
what.  Apparently  they  could  not  think  that  Jesus 
meant  His  words  to  be  taken  literally.  All  the  Syn- 
optists agree  that  on  the  last  occasion  when  Jesus 
announced  His  death  to  His  disciples,  he  dwelt  more 
on  the  details  of  suffering,  presented  the  thought  in  a 
form  that  would  be  more  fearful  to  their  minds,  thus 
seeking  to  prepare  them  by  degrees  for  the  still  more 
fearful  reality. 

(3)  Resurrection  and  Parousia.      Every  time  that 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  2/3 

Jesus  formally  announced  His  death  to  His  disciples, 
He  announced  also  His  resurrection,  thus  binding  up 
with  hope  the  hearts  that  He  had  wounded.  He  had 
referred  to  His  resurrection  before  this  time,  but  only 
in  dark  sayings  (John  ii.  19;  Luke  xi.  30).  The  cer- 
tainty of  resurrection,  and  so  of  triumph  over  the 
enemy,  was  involved  in  the  very  consciousness  that 
He  was  the  Messiah.  He  saw  clearly  that  He  was  to 
be  put  to  death,  and  that  His  cause  would  apparently 
fail,  but  He  knew  in  His  inmost  soul  that  He 
should  yet  overcome,  because  He  knew  that  He  was 
the  Messiah.  As  such  He  must  yet  see  the -pleasure 
of  the  Lord  prospering  in  His  hand,  and  be  satisfied 
by  seeing  the  justification  of  many  as  a  fruit  of  the 
travail  of  His  soul  (Isaiah  liii.  lO-ii).  The  first 
announcement  of  His  return  is. in  connection  with  the 
thought  of  judgment,  and  immediately  after  the  first 
formal  announcement  of  death  (Mark  ix.  i ;  Matt.  xvi. 
28;  Luke  ix.  27).  When  He  announced  the  suffering 
of  His  own  way.  He  also  announced  that  the  way  of 
His  disciples  would  be  one  of  suffering.  Discipleship 
meant  self-denial,  the  bearing  by  each  one  of  his  own 
cross,  the  willingness  .to  lose  life  for  Christ's  sake.  In 
the  meantime  they  should  be  sustained  in  the  loss  of 
earthly  life,  and  deterred  from  endangering  the  wel- 
fare of  their  souls,  by  the  prospect  of  His  returning  in 


274        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

glory,  when  He  would  reward  all  according  to  their 
deeds.  Thus  the  thought  of  His  parousia  was  first 
presented  to  His  disciples  as  a  motive  to  faithfulness. 
This  thought  also  sprang  directly  out  of  His  Messianic 
consciousness,  like  the  thought  of  His  resurrection. 
It  will  be  considered  again  in  connection  with  the 
fuller  statement  in  the  Eschatological  Discourse. 

(4)  The  Transfiguration.  (4aj  Its  Setting.  No 
importance  attaches  to  the  earthly  scene  of  the  trans- 
figuration, yet  it  is  a  matter  of  interest.  The  connec- 
tion in  which  it  occurs  suggests  that  it  transpired  in 
the  vicinity  of  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  this  is  confirmed 
by  Mark  ix.  30-33.  From  the  mount  of  transfigura- 
tion they  went  to  Capernaum,  and  this  journey  took 
them  througJi  Galilee.  This  excludes  the  traditional 
view  that  the  transfiguration  was  upon  Mt.  Tabor.  A 
journey  from  Mt.  Tabor  to  Capernaum  would  not  take 
them  through  Galilee. 

The  place  of  the  transfiguration  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
is  more  important  than  its  geographical  location.  It 
came  in  connection  with  the  first  explicit  announce- 
ment of  His  death  and  His  return  in  glory,  that  is,  it 
came  in  connection  with  the  thought  w^hich,  more  than 
any  other  uttered  by  Jesus,  perplexed  the  disciples. 
This  fact  must  have  a  bearing  on  the  interpretation 
of  the  event. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  275 

(4b)  Its  character.  It  seems  easier,  on  the  whole,  to 
regard  the  transfiguration  as  a  vision  than  as  an  objective 
reahty,  and  there  is  no  exegetical  objection  to  this  view. 
The  verb  which  describes  the  appearance  of  Moses 
and  EUjah  is  regularly  used  of  visionary  phenomena 
(Luke  xxiv.  34).  Further,  it  is  not  easy  to  suppose 
that  departed  spirits  could  speak  to  ears  of  flesh,  or  that 
eyes  of  flesh  could  see  the  heavenly  glory  of  Christ. 
The  voice  out  of  the  cloud  may  best  be  understood  as 
was  the  voice  which  came  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus. 
The  statement  that  the  disciples  looked  around  sud- 
denly, and  saw  no  one  but  Jesus,  is  natural  if  at  this 
moment  they  came  out  of  the  visionary  state.  Still 
further  evidence  for  regarding  the  transfiguration  as  a 
vision  is  found  in  the  fact  that  there  seems  to  be  no 
adequate  reason  for  the  manifold  miracle  which  is 
involved  in  the  view  that  the  transfiguration  was  an 
objective  reality.  What  adequate  ground  is  there  for 
callmg  the  spirits  of  Moses  and  Elijah  back  to  earth.^ 
Jesus  did  not  need  anything  which  they  could  give. 
He  understood  the  Old  Testament  better  than  they 
did.  What  adequate  ground  is  there,  again,  for  a 
miraculous  change  in  the  corporeality  of  Jesus.'  If 
such  a  change  took  place,  it  must  apparently  have 
been  for  the  sake  of  the  disciples.  Jesus  certainly  did 
not  need  it   in  order  that    He   might   be   sure   of  His 


2/6        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

future  glory.  But  it  was  not  necessary  on  the  dis- 
ciples' behalf,  for  a  vision  might  convey  to  them  the 
same  assurance  in  regard  to  Jesus.  We  may  suppose 
then  that  the  disciples  watched  long  with  Jesus,  and 
that  they  saw  His  face  covered  with  unusual  li^ht 
while  he  prayed.  Then  as  their  eyes  were  heavy 
(Luke  ix.  32),  they  fell  asleep,  and  a  divine  vision 
was  granted  unto  them.  In  this  they  saw  Jesus  glori- 
fied, and  Moses  and  Elijah  conversing  with  Him. 
When  they  came  out  of  the  vision  in  which  they  had 
seen  the  Lord  with  the  Old  Testament  saints,  they 
saw  Jesus  only.  The  words  of  Peter  about  making 
tabernacles  for  Moses,  Elijah  and  Jesus,  belonged  to 
this  visionary  state,  just  as  the  words  which  he  spoke 
at  a  later  day  on  a  roof  in  Joppa  (Acts  x.  9-16). 
These  were  a  part  of  the  trance.  Likewise  the  cloud 
in  the  transfiguration  scene  belonged  to  the  vision. 

(4c)    Its  Meaning.    It  is  not  of  vital  importince  t,o 

determine  whether  the  transfiguration  was  something 

objective,  or  was  a  vision.      The  significance  of  it   for 

the    disciples    remains   the   same   in   either   case.      It 

\  taught  them,  first,  that  the  death  of  the   Messiah  was 

j  in   line  with  the   law  and  the  prophets;  second,  that 

the  Messiah  should  enter  into  His  glory  through  death; 

^  and  third,  it  was  a  new  confirmation   that  this   Jesus 

'  with  whom   they  had   come  up  to  the  mountani  top 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  IJJ 

was  the  Son  of  God.  They  heard  Moses  and  Ehjah 
speaking  with  Jesus  about  His  death  which  was  soon 
to  be  accomphshed  in  Jerusalem,  and  thus  they  were 
taught  that  what  Jesus  had  said  about  dying  was  a 
part  of  the  Old  Testament  picture  of  the  Messiah. 
They  beheld  Jesus  glorified,  which  could  be  under- 
stood by  them  only  as  a  pledge  of  the  fulfilment  of 
His  recent  word  to  them  about  His  coming  again  in 
the  glory  of  the  Father.  The  voice  out  of  the  cloud 
gave  them  new  assurance  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
(H  Pet.  i.  17-18),  and  reminded  them  of  their  supreme 
obligation  to  hear  Him. 

If  the   transfiguration   was  a  vision  granted  to  the 
three  disciples,  then  naturally  the  meaning  of  the  hour 
was  for  them  rather  than  for  Jesus.      Yet  the  disciples 
did  not  see  its  significance  at  that  time,  or  saw  it  only 
imperfectly.      They  all  thought  that   Elijah's  appear- 
ance was  the  fulfilment  of  Malachi  iv.  5  (Mark  ix.  11), 
and  they  were  surprised  that  he  had  not  come  before. 
Jesus   corrected  this   misapprehension    as   they  came 
down    from  the    mountain.      He    told   them   that  the 
Elijah  of  whom  tJiey  were  thinking  had   already  come 
(Matt.  xvii.   12-13).      He   had    not   rr^^/^rr^  all  things 
because  the  people  had  hindered   him,  and  had  finally 
done  to  him  what  they  listed.      But  in  consequence  of 
this    very  thing,    the   other  Scriptures    regarding   the 


2/8        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

suffering  of  the  Son  of  man  would  now  be  fulfilled 
(Mark  ix.  12).  Had  all  things  been  restored,  the 
Messiah  would  not  have  needed  to  suffer.  But  though 
they  did  not  at  the  time  fully  understand  the  vision, 
and  apparently  could  not  fully  understand  it  till  after 
the  resurrection  (Mark  ix.  9),  it  must  have  had  a  per- 
manent influence  upon  them,  helping  them  toward  an 
apprehension  of  the  meaning  of  Christ's  death,  and 
helping  to  sustain  their  personal  confidence  in  Him 
through  the  days  of  awful  suspense,  in  which  He  was 
crucified,  dead,  and  buried. 

(g-)  The  Final  Departure  from  Galilee.  From  Caesarea 
Philippi  Jesus  with  His  disciples  passed  through  Galilee 
to  Capernaum  as  secretly  as  possible  (Mark  ix.  30). 
There  is  no  record  of  public  words  or  deeds  which  cer- 
tainly belong  in  this  time,  but  there  are  three  inci- 
dents which  probably  fell  in  the  days  of  the  final 
departure  from  Galilee.  Matthew  puts  here  the  inci- 
dent of  the  stater  (Matt.  xvii.  24-27),  which  shows 
that  the  presence  of  Jesus  in  Capernaum  must  have 
become  known.  This  incident  is  illustrative  of  the 
attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  laws  of  the  land.  When 
the  collectors  asked  Peter  whether  his  Master  did  not 
pay  the  half  shekel,  Peter  at  once  replied  that  He  did. 
This  implies  either  that  Peter  knew  of  Jesus'  having 
paid  the  temple-tax  on   former  occasions,  or  that  he 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  279 

felt  perfectly  sure  from  Jesus'  general  observance  of 
the  law  that  He  would  in  this  particular  instance 
meet  its  requirement.  The  form  of  the  question  im- 
plies that  this  tax  was  then  overdue,  and  it  is  possible, 
as  Edersheim^  holds,  that  it  was  the  tax  for  the  last 
Passover.  Jesus  was  not  in  Jerusalem  at  that  time, 
and  may  not  have  been  at  His  adopted  home  in 
Capernaum,  so  the  payment  had  not  yet  been  made. 

Jesus  put  His  payment  of  the  tax  on  the  ground 
that  He  would  not  give  offense.  In  reality  He  was 
not  under  obligation  to  pay  it,  even  as  the  son  of  a 
king  is  not  taxed  to  support  the  king.  These  words 
echo  the  consciousness  of  one  who  knew  that  He  was 
greater  than  the  temple  (Matt.  xii.  6). 

The  way  in  which,  according  to  Matthew,  the 
needed  money  was  procured  is  not  parallel  with  the 
other  signs  of  Jesus,  and  is  open  to  objection.  It 
reads  more  like  the  tales  of  the  apochryphal  Gospels 
than  like  the  narratives  of  the  genuine  ones.  Peter 
was  to  go  to  the  lake,  take  up  the  first  fish  that  should 
bite  his  hook,  and  he  would  find  a  stater  in  its  mouth 
(a  silver  coin  worth  four  drachmas,  or  about  sixty-six 
cents).  It  is  objected,  c.  g.,  by  Hase  and  Beyschlag, 
that  in  supplying  the  needed  money  in  this  miraculous 
manner    Jesus    would    have    appeared    to     be     doing 

I   Life   and    Thnes  of  Jesus  the   Messiah,  ii.  113. 


280        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

exactly  what  in  the  wilderness  He  had  refused  to  do, 
and  had  regarded  as  a  temptation  of  Satan  (Matt.  iv. 
3).  In  Capernaum,  where  He  had  friends,  it  seems 
probable  that  He  could  have  easily  obtained  the  small 
amount  which  was  required,  without  a  miracle.  It 
can  not  be  objected  that  He  would  thus  be  dependent 
on  others,  for  we  know  that  He  received  gifts  from 
friends,  and  was  indeed  entirely  supported  by  them 
during  His  ministry.      He  accepted  the  gifts  of  love. 

Then,  too,  the  miracle  as  recorded  seems  to  have 
no  great  lesson  as  have  the  miracles  of  Jesus  in  gen- 
eral. As  a  sign  it  seems  to  have  no  adequate  signifi- 
cance. It  would  of  course  show  that  Jesus  had  super- 
natural knowledge;  but  it  is  plain  from  the  Gospels 
that  Jesus  was  given  supernatural  knowledge  and 
power  for  the  accomplishment  of  His  Messianic 
work.  In  this  case,  however,  such  knowledge  does 
not  appear  to  be  necessary  for  His  Messianic  work. 
And  finally,  as  Weiss  points  out,  the  narrative  says 
nothing  of  the  result  of  the  word  of  Jesus  to  Peter. 
If  Jesus  had  really  promised  a  miracle,  we  should 
have  expected  some  reference  to  the  success  of  Peter. 
There  is  no  other  case  in  the  Gospels  where  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  promised  a  miracle,  and  where  neverthe- 
less the  miracle  is  not  recorded.  But  here  we  are 
not  told  whether  Peter  found  the  money. 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.  28 1 

Edersheim,  however,  sees  in  the  act  a  vindication 
of  Christ's  "  royal  title."  Jesus  pays  the  tax  "  mirac- 
uousl3%  as  heaven's  King."  The  objection  to  this  view 
is  obvious.  Jesus  did  not  manifest  His  kingly  glory 
chiefly  in  working  miracles.  The  prophets  also 
wrought  miracles.  But  He  manifested  His  glory  in 
His  divine  character,  in  His  grace  and  truth.  Mira- 
cles were  incidental  to  this  manifestation.  Thus 
Edersheim  fails,  as  others  have,  to  point  out  any 
adequate  ground  for  the  miracle,  and  the  story 
remains  a  stranger  and  a  foreigner  in  the  circle  of  the 
great  works  of  Jesus. 

A  second  incident  belonging  to  the  last  days  in 
Capernaum  and  Galilee  was  the  address  in  regard  to 
true  greatness  (^Mark  ix.  33-50;  Matt,  xviii.  1-14; 
Luke  ix.  46-48).  This,  like  the  first  reference  by 
Jesus  to  His  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  (first  use  of 
the  self-designation  Son  of  man,  seems  to  have  been 
in  the  house  of  Peter.  This  incident  is  biographic- 
ally  interesting  for  these  reasons:  (i)  It  suggests  that 
the  three  favored  disciples,  \vho  had  been  with  Jesus 
on  the  mount  of  transfiguration,  had  intimated  to  the 
others  that  they  had  had  a  wonderful  experience  on 
the  mountain,  and  so  had  excited  jealous  feeling 
among  their  brethren.  This  at  any  rate  accounts  in 
a  natural  manner  for  the  rise  of  the  controversy.      (2) 


282         THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

It  was  in  the  course  of  this  conversation  that  John 
related  how  the  disciples  had  found  an  unknown  man 
casting  out  demons  in  the  name  of  Jesus  (Mark  ix.  38- 
41).  This  fact  belongs  to  the  brighter  side  of  the 
Galilean  work,  for  it  shows  that  there  were  here  and 
there  souls  which  had  been  profoundly  influenced  by 
the  name  of  Jesus,  and  which  had  become  active  in 
good  works.  (3)  The  address  on  greatness  shows, 
incidentally,  Christ's  estimate  of  childhood  (Mark  ix. 
36-37;  Matt,  xviii.  2-5,  10;  Luke  ix.  47-48).  He  set 
a  little  child  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples  as  their 
teacher,  and  said  that  greatness  in  His  kingdom 
required  the  humility  of  a  little  child.  He  said  also 
that  the  child  or  childlike  disciple  was  His  represen- 
tative, and  He  set  forth  the  preciousness  of  the  child- 
soul  under  the  symbol  that  the  angels  of  children 
were  especially  near  to  the  heavenly  Father. 

A  third  incident  belonging  to  the  last  days  in 
Galilee  was  the  conversation  between  Jesus  and  His 
brothers  (John  vii.  3-9).  It  seems  probable  that 
Jesus  had  sought  out  His  mother  and  brothers  before 
He  should  leave  Galilee  forever.  The  brothers'  words 
show  that  Jesus  had  recently  avoided  publicity  which 
plainly  appears  also  elsewhere.  His  brothers  wished 
Him  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  and  manifest  Himself  openly. 
This  seems   to  indicate   that  they  no  longer  regarded 


THE    GALILEAN    MINISTRY:    SECOND    PART.         283 

Him  as  being  out  of  His  mind,  as  they  had  done  at 
an  eadier  day  (Mark  iii.  21).  They  had  not  yet  a 
true  faith  in  Him,  as  John  says,  and  yet  they  seem  to 
have  regarded  Him  as  equipped  with  some  special 
authority.  As  Jesus  had  avoided  pubhcity  during  the 
last  weeks,  so  He  departed  from  Galilee  and  went 
up  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  in  a  private  way  (John 
vii.  10).  But  He  seems  not  to  have  departed  until 
He  had  received  an  intimation  from  the  Father  that 
His  time  had  come  (John  vii.  6,  8;    v.   19). 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Last  Labors  for  Jerusalem. 

(a)  The  Data.  The  data  for  the  third  period  of 
Messianic  activity  in  Jerusalem  are  found  in  John 
exclusively.  The  Synoptists  omit  this  as  they  omit 
the  visit  to  Jerusalem  at  the  first  Passover,  the  early 
labors  in  Judea.  and  the  visit  at  the  feast  of  Purim. 
Matthew  and  Mark  pass  at  once  from  the  Galilean 
ministry  to  the  ministry  in  Perea.  and  from  Perea  to 
the  last  Passover.  Luke  also  omits  this  Jerusalem 
period.  When  he  says  ^ix.  51;  that  Jesus,  at  the  close 
of  the  Galilean  ministry,  set  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusa- 
lem, it  is  not  certain  that  He  has  in  mind  the  journey 
to  the  feast  of  the  Tabernacles,  which  John  records. 
He  makes  no  reference  to  Jesus'  being  271  Jerusalem 
until  the  last  week  of  His  life.'  He  seems  to  regard 
Christ's  departure  from  Galilee  as  the  beginning  of 
the  end.  From  this  time  till  the  last  Passover,  he 
represents  Jesus  as  journeying  and  teaching.  His  face 
always  toicard  Jerusalem-. 

1  See  Weiss,  Das  Lehcyi  Jesii,  ii.  381. 

2  Luke  ix.  51;  xiii,  22;  xviii.  31  do  not  necessarily  refer  to  three 
journeys,  but  may  be  three  references  to  the  same  journey.  See 
Edersheim.  ii    127. 

(284) 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM.         285 

{b)  Journey  to  Jerusalem.  As  Jesus  avoided  goin^ 
to  Jerusalem  with  the  multitudes  who  went  up  to  the 
feast,  so  He  may  have  avoided  the  ordinary  route 
down  the  Jordan  valley  on  the  eastern  side.  He  started 
at  least  by  the  Samaritan  route.  Luke  speaks  of  a 
journey  through  Samaria  or  at  any  rate  into  Samaria 
(Luke  ix.  52),  and  it  is  easier  to  identify  this  with  the 
trip  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  than  to  think,  with 
Beyschlag,  that  it  refers  to  the  journey  in  March  to 
the  feast  of  Purim.  The  messengers  who  were  sent 
before  Him  to  find  lodging  were  naturally  disciples, 
but  this  is  not  iit  conflict  with  John's  statement  that 
Jesus  went  up  to  the  feast  as  it  were  in  secret.  John 
simply  contrasts  the  way  in  which  Jesus  went  with 
the  going  in  the  caravan  of  pilgrims,  but  does  not 
imply  that  He  went  absolutely  alone.  The  first 
Samaritan  village  where  the  messengers  sought  lodging 
for  Jesus,  refused  to  receive  Him  and  He  went  to 
another  village  (Luke  ix.  56).  Edersheim  ^  supposes 
that  this  second  village  was  Jewish,  and  that  Jesus 
turned  back  across  the  border  into  Galilee,  but  there 
is  no  evidence  for  this  other  than  the  assumption  that 
if  one  village  rejected  Him,  all  villages  would.  This, 
however,  is  utterly  improbable.  Indeed,  there  was 
one  village  in  Samaria  where  Jesus  would  have  been 

I  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  MessiaJi,  ii.  131. 


286        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

welcomed  as  no  other  man  of  the  whole  earth  (John 
iv.  39-42).  And  in  other  villages,  where  He  was  not 
known  as  the  Messiah,  it  is  likely  that  good  Jewish 
money  would,  as  a  rule,  overcome  Samaritan  preju- 
dice. Jesus  and  His  disciples  would  not  have  started 
through  Samaria  unless  they  had  been  reasonably  sure 
of  finding  entertainment. 

It  may  have  been  on  this  journey  that  Jesus  met 
the  ten  lepers  as  recorded  in  Luke  xvii.  11- 19.  The 
fact  that  one  of  these  was  a  Samaritan  makes  it  prob- 
able that  they  were  near  the  border  of  Samaria.  This 
is  the  only  case  on  record  where  Jesus  wrought  a 
miracle  in  behalf  of  a  Samaritan. 

Jesus  had  not  been  in  Jerusalem  at  the  last  Pass- 
over, though  He  had  been  there  at  the  Purim  feast  a 
month  earlier,  and  therefore  when  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles came  there  was  a  general  expectation  that  He 
would  attend  it.  He  was  sought  among  the  pilgrims, 
and  there  was  a  common  interest  in  His  appearance. 
What  was  said  about  Him  openly  was  unfavorable; 
but  some  persons,  when  not  in  the  hearing  of  the 
leaders,  held  that  He  was  a  good  man  (John  vii.  12). 
They  went  no  further  than  this.  Even  those  who 
were  friendly  toward  Him  did  not  believe  Him  to  be 
the  Messiah.  Those  who  were  hostile  said  that  He 
led  the  multitude  astray  (John  vii.   12).      This  charge 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM.         28/ 

was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  His  works  had 
raised  their  expectations,  and  had  made  them  think 
that  He  might  be  the  Messiah;  but  when  they  had 
sought  to  make  Him  king,  He  had  refused.  Here, 
then,  we  have  a  distinct  echo  of  what  followed  the 
miracle  of  feeding  the  five  thousand  near  Bethsaida 
Julias.  But  the  rulers  in  Jerusalem  were  more  actively 
and  intensely  hostile  toward  Jesus  than  any  of  the 
common  people,  and  their  purpose,  which  was  known 
in  the  capital,  was  to  destroy  Him  (John  vii.   19). 

(c)  General  View  of  the  Third  Visit  to  Jerusalem. 
Jesus  went  to  Jerusalem  in  September  (John  vii.  2.  lOj, 
and  remained  until  the  feast  of  Dedication,  which  was 
in  December  (John  x.  22).  Thus  He  was  there  about 
three  months.  During  this  period  He  seems  to  have 
taught  much  in  the  temple,  and  in  His  teaching  great 
stress  falls  upon  His  Messianic  claim.  So  far  as  we 
are  informed,  He  wrought  but  one  miracle  in  these 
months. 

From  the  first  there  was  a  deadly  hatred  toward 
Him  on  the  part  of  the  rulers,  and  He  was  preserved, 
humanly  speaking,  by  virtue  of  the  popular  favor.  The 
division  among  the  people  saved  Him,  as  in  later  times 
a  similar  division  saved  Paul.  He  finally  departed 
from  Jerusalem,  when  a  determined  attempt  was  made 
to  take  Him,  and  went  into  Perea  (John  x.  40). 


288  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

{d)   Teaching  in  the  Temple.    What  John  records  out 
of  this  period  is  rather  the  controversies  growing  out 
of  Christ's  teaching   in   the   temple  than  the  teaching 
itself,  and  yet  the   points  on   which  the   controversies 
turned   were    probably   also    the   vital    points   of  His 
teaching.    These  points  are  so  intensely  pe7'sona/  thsit, 
although  the  present  work  does  not  include  theteaching 
of  Jesus   in   detail,  they  may   be   briefly  enumerated. 
Thus  He  claims  a  unique  knowledge  of   the   Father 
(John  vii.  i6;  viii.  38,  55,  etc.),  a  unique  mission  from 
the   Father  (John  vii.  28;  viii.   16,   18,  23,  26,  28,  42; 
X.  36),  and  a  unique  union  with  the  Father  (John  viii. 
16;    X.    30,    38).      All   these   claims  are   but   different 
aspects  of  the    one  Messianic   claim,  which  seems  to 
have   been    as    prominent  in   this   period   as  was  the 
preaching  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  early  Galilean 
ministry.      Then   He  claims  to  be  without  a  sense  of 
sin  (John  viii.  29,  46),  though  this  claim  is  not  promi- 
nent.     He  has  a  conviction  of   His  own  pre-existence 
(John  viii.   56,  58),  which  is  here  more  unambiguously 
expressed  than  elsewhere   (comp.   John  vi.    62;    xvii. 
24-25).      He    refers     again     and    again     to     His    ap- 
proaching death,    and   regards  it    as   an   act    of    self- 
revelation.     It  will  show  Him  to  be  the  Messiah  (John 
viii.  28);   it   will    prove  that  He  is  the  good  shepherd 
Cjohn  X.   II,   15,   17,   18).      Out  of  His  Messianic  con- 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM.         289 

sciousness,  which  is  brought  forward  so  prominently, 
comes  the  urgent  statement  of  man's  need  of  Him. 
His  hearers  shall  die  in  their  sins  unless  they  believe 
that  He  is  the  Christ  (John  viii.  24).  He  alone  gives 
freedom,  light,  life  (John  viii,   12,  36;  x.   10). 

Such  is  the  fulness  of  the  personal  Messianic  claim 
which  according  to  John  characterized  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  in  this  period.  Not  only  is  there  a  remark- 
able fulness,  but  the  teaching  is  urgent.  Jesus  called 
for  immediate  acceptance  of  His  message  on  the 
ground  that  the  time  of  His  being  with  them  was 
short.  In  a  little  while  they  would  seek  Him,  but 
then  it  would  -be  too  late.  They  could  not  come 
whither  He  was  about  to  go.  Thus  He  saw  clearly 
the  nearness  of  the  end. 

Two  points  in  the  above  claim  may  be  considered 

a    little    more  in    detail.       The    unique    union   which 

Jesus  claimed  with   the  Father  is  defined  in  His  own 

words.      It   is  conditioned  on   His  perfect  obedience. 

The  Father  is   ivith  Him  because  He  does  always  the 

things    which   are    pleasing  to    Him   (John    viii.    29). 

He  abides  in   the  Father's  love  because  He  keeps  the 

Father's   commandments    (John    xv.    10).      Thus   the 

unity    claimed    has   a    moral     basis.      Further,    Jesus 

makes  it  plain  that  this  oneness  which  He   claims  is 

oneness  of  character.      Thus  He  says,    "  He  that  hath 
19 


290        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father"  (John  xii.  45;  xiv.  9). 
The  seeing  here  meant  cannot  be  physical,  for  the 
Father  is  spirit,  and  as  such  invisible  to  eyes  of  flesh 
(John  iv.  24).  The  language  of  Jesus  accordingly 
means  this:  he  that  hath  seen  my  charaeter  hath  seen 
the  Father.  His  oneness  with  the  Father  is  several 
times  expressed  in  the  phrase,  "  I  in  the  Father  and 
the  Father  in  me"  (John  xiv.  10,  11,  20;  xvii.  11,  21, 
22).  It  is  plain  that  this  refers  to  character,  for  • 
Jesus  prays  that  His  disciples  may  have  the  same  one- 
ness, or  may  be  perfected  into  the  same  unity  In 
this  case  a  metaphysical  unity  is  of  course  out  of  the 
question.  Again,  after  mentioning  His  words  and 
works  which  the  Jews  had  seen,  Jesus  said  that  they 
had  seen  and  hated  both  Him  and  His  Father  (John 
XV.  22-24).  This  can  only  mean  that  the  words  and 
works  of  Jesus  manifested  the  character  of  the  Father, 
as  they  also  manifested  the  character  of  Jesus. 

The  second  point  to  be  noticed  a  little  more  fully 
is  Jesus'  conviction  of  pre-existence.  The  clearest 
statement  of  this  is  in  the  address  under  consideration. 
There  was  an  earlier  allusion  to  it  in. John  vi.  62,  and 
a  later  allusion  in  xvii.  24-25.  These  are  confirma- 
tory of  the  present  utterance:  "Before  Abraham 
came  into  being  I  am."  Here  He  affirms  not  only 
that    He   existed  before   Abraham,   but    also  seems  to 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM.         29 1 

affirm  eternal  pre-existence.  For  He  does  not  say,  I 
was  before  Abraham,  but  He  says,  when  speaking  of 
existence  in  the  distant  past,  "I  rt-;;/."  The  view  of 
Beyschlag  and  Wendt  that  this  pre-existence  was 
idealy  not  personal,  cannot  be  here  considered  in 
detail.  It  seems,  however  to  be  open  to  fatal  objec- 
tions, (i)  A  merely  ideal  existence  in  the  thought  of 
God  would  not  have  proven  the  superiority  of  Jesus 
over  Abraham,  for  Abraham  also  must  have  pre- 
existed in  the  mind  of  the  omniscient  God.  (2)  The 
words  of  Jesus  in  His  farewell  prayer,  ' '  Glorify  Thou 
me  with  Thyself  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  Thee 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (John  xvii.  5), 
are  plainly  not  the  same  as  these,  Glorify  Thou  me 
with  Thyself  with  the  glory  which  thoic  didst  purpose 
for  vie  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  (3)  John 
and  Paul  teach  an  eternal  personal  pre-existence,  the 
former  in  the  Prologue  of  his  Gospel,  and  in  his  first 
Epistle,  the  latter  in  Col.  i.  17;  H  Cor.  viii.  9;  Phil, 
ii.  6-8.  Where  did  they  get  this  doctrine,  if  Jesus 
did  not  teach  it.^  It  was  not  found  in  the  Jewish 
theology.  That  speaks  of  the  pre-existence  of  the 
Messiah  in  the  thought  of  God,  as  Israel  and  the 
temple  had  pre-existed,  but  knows  of  no  personal  pre- 
existence.^     But  while   holding  that   Jesus  claimed  a 

2  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmiids,  pp.  339-342. 


292        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

personal  pre-existence,  there  is  no  ground  for  holding 
that  He  claimed  to  be  cojiscioics  of  pre-existence.  He 
had  a  conviction  of  it,  but  not  consciousness.  His 
consciousness  was  human,  and  His  Messianic  conscious- 
ness reached  back,  as  has  been  seen,  to  the  hour  of 
His  baptism.  But  if  He  knew  Himself  to  be  the 
Messiah,  He  would  predicate  of  Himself  what  the  Old 
Testament  predicated  of  the  Messiah  (Isaiah  ix.  6; 
Micah  V.  2). 

{e)  Testing  the  Jerusalem  Disciples.  The  words  of 
Jesus  in  the  temple  won  many  disciples  (John  vii.  31). 
Some  were  ready  to  accept  Him  as  the  prophet  who 
should  precede  the  Messiah,  and  some  as  the  Messiah 
Himself  (John  vii.  41).  Even  the  officers  of  the 
Pharisees  were  deeply  impressed  by  His  words.  But 
the  impression  was,  at  least  in  most  cases,  like  that 
which  Jesus  had  produced  at  the  first  Passover  (John 
ii.  23).  He  had  many  disciples  around  Him,  but  He 
had  not  their  hearts.  They  accepted  Him  because 
they  thought  He  was  thci7'  Messiah,  but  when  they 
understood  His  teaching  better  they  rejected  Him. 

The  words  of  Jesus  to  these  ostensible  disciples 
seem  very  severe,  but  it  appears  in  the  sequel  that 
they  are  true.  Jesus  began  on  a  certain  occasion 
(John  viii,  31-59)  by  promising  His  hearers  freedom 
through   the   truth,    and   must   then   explain  that   He 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM.         293 

meant  freedom  from  sin.  His  hearers  need  this  free- 
dom, for  though  they  are  descended  from  Abraham 
they  are  hostile  to  Him.  They  have  the  spirit  of  the 
devil,  who  is  a  murderer  and  a  liar.  When  Jesus  spoke 
this  word,  those  who  a  little  before  had  been,  at  least 
outwardly,  disciples  of  Jesus,  called  Him  a  Samari- 
tan, possessed  with  a  demon,  and  a  few  minutes  later 
they  took  up  stones  to  stone  Him.  Thus  it  became 
plain  that  these  disciples  were  such  only  so  long  as 
they  thought  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  of  their 
hopes.  At  heart  they  were  as  far  from  Him  as  were 
the  rulers.  One  hour  they  accepted  Him,  the  next 
hour  they  were  ready  to  stone  Him.  This  contro- 
versy is  a  notable  illustration  of  Christ's  faithfulness 
to  truth  in  dealing  with  men.  Jerusalem  was  the 
very  place  where  He  needed  the  support  of  a  strong 
band  of  disciples,  and  now  at  last  He  seemed  to  be 
gaining  such  support.  There  were  many  who  pro- 
fessed belief  in  Him.  But  instead  of  encouraging 
them  in  their  superficial  faith,  He  brought  them  at 
once  to  the  rigorous  test  of  truth,  and  would  have 
none  of  their  discipleship  unless  it  was  genuine.  He 
would  sooner  have  them  stone  Him  for  telling  them 
the  truth  than  have  them  accept  Him  as  a  worldly 
Messiah. 

(/)     The  Man  Born  Blind.      When  those  who   had 


294        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

been  disciples  of  Jesus  took  up  stones  to  stone  Him^ 
it  seemed  as  though  nothing  more  could  be  done  in 
Jerusalem.  But  John  relates  how  Jesus  yet  won  a  true 
disciple,  and  how  at  the  same  time  He  intensified  the 
spirit  of  opposition,  which  soon  drove  Him  from  the 
capital.  This  giving  sight  to  a  man  born  blind  (John 
ix)  is  biographically  important  in  several  respects. 
(i)  It  again  caused  a  division  among  the  people,  and 
created  a  party  favorable  to  Jesus  (John  ix.  i6). 
Thus  it  made  it  possible  for  Him  again  to  appear  in 
public,  which  He  did,  and  by  His  words  won  yet 
further  support.  (2)  It  brings  out  the  fact  that  the 
Jews  had  taken  stringent  ecclesiastical  action  against 
any  who  should  accept  Jesus.  Such  persons  were  to 
be  excommunicated,  /.  e.,  put  out  of  the  synagogue 
(John  ix.  22).  This  was  the  severest  form  of  spiritual 
punishment  which  could  be  inflicted.  In  consequence 
of  it  a  man  was  cast  out  from  all  intercourse  with  his. 
countrymen,  and  was  accursed.  He  was  as  a  dead 
man.  This  punishment  could  be  inflicted  upon  one 
who  disregarded  the  statutes  of  the  sanhedrin\  and  so 
could  be  inflicted  in  the  case  of  this  man,  for  he  had 
virtually  confessed  Christ  (see  John  ix.  27,  31-33)^ 
and  the  sanhedrin  had  declared  the  ban  on  any  who 
should  be  guilty  of  that   act.      This  extreme   measure 

I   Gfrorer,  Das  Jahrhnndcrt  des  Heils,  i.  183. 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM.         295 

shows  that  the  rulers   considered  Jesus   a   dangerous 
enemy  even   in  Jerusalem,  the  center  and  stronghold 
of  their  power.      (3)      It  shows  in  a  striking  manner 
the   regard   of   Jesus   for   the   individual.      In   a   time 
when  His  mind  was  filled  Vv^ith   the   crisis   just   before 
Him,    and  when   His  life  was   hourly   in   danger.    He 
found  the  man  who  had  been  excommunicated,  prob- 
ably  not    without   seeking  for   him,  and   by  personal 
conversation   led     him     to    believe.       The    treatment 
which  this  man  had  received  from  the  acknowledged 
religious  leaders  and   His  own  treatment  of  him   may 
have  suggested  His  talk  about  the  good  shepherd  and 
the  hireling.      (4)      It  shows  clearly  the  animus  of  the 
opposition  to  Jesus.      He  healed  the  man  on  the  Sab- 
batJi.      This  was  proof  to  the   Pharisees  that    He  was 
not   from   God.      It  confirmed  them  in  the  belief  that 
He  was  a   sinner.      Thus  they  strained   out   the  gnat 
and  swallowed   the   camel.      Jesus'   violation   of  their 
unauthorized    statute    regarding    the     Sabbath    made 
them  blind  to  His   divinely  good   and   gracious  deed. 
On  the  contrary,  the  man  who  was  healed  argued  that 
one  who  could  do  such  a  great  and  kind  work  must  be 
from  God. 

{g)  In  Solomon's  Porch.  The  miracle  on  the 
blind  man  and  the  subsequent  words  of  Jesus  won 
temporary   security   for   Him.       He    appeared   in    the 


296        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

temple  again  as  a  teacher.  This  was  at  the  feast  of 
the  Dedication  in  December  (John  x.  22).  The  leaders 
now  sought  to  entrap  Him  in  speech.  They  asked 
Him  to  tell  them  plainly  whether  He  was  the  Christ. 
They  probably  hoped,  as  Weiss^  says,  to  get  from 
Him  a  statement  which  would  alienate  the  sympathy 
of  the  people,  or  a  statement  which  would  enable 
them  to  proceed  against  Him  in  a  legal  manner. 

Although  Jesus  saw  their  design.  He  spoke  in 
unequivocal  terms  of  His  Messiahship,  and  used  lan- 
guage which  His  enemies  interpreted  as  blasphemy 
(John  X.  33).  Once  they  took  up  stones  to  stone 
Him,  but  for  some  unknown  reason  desisted,  perhaps 
because  there  were  too  many  around  who  sympathized 
with  Jesus.  Jesus  referred  them  to  the  Scriptures  and 
to  His  own  works  for  proof  that  His  language  was  not 
blasphemy  when  He  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 
Were  not  earthly  rulers,  because  of  their  office,  called 
gods  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6),  and  He  whom  the  Father  had 
sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world  as  the  Messiah  had 
claimed  only  to  be  the  Son  of  God! 

And  again,  the  fact  that  He  does  the  works  of  the 
Father,  as  in  opening  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  jus- 
tifies His  language.  But  this  reference  to  His  relation 
to  the  Father  roused  them  to  a  new  assault,  and  He 

I   Das  Leben  Jesu,  ii,  414. 


LAST  LABORS  FOR  JERUSALEM.         29/ 

deemed  it  best  to  make  His  escape  from  them.  Thus 
His  longest  ministry  in  Jerusalem  terminated,  and  He 
left  the  city  a  fugitive. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

The    Perean    Ministry. 

{a)  General  View.  The  Perean  ministry  is  at- 
tested by  all  the  evangelists,  but  it  is  not  possible  to 
give  a  detailed  picture  of  it.  Luke  has  more  material 
which  seems  to  belong  in  this  period  than  have  the 
others,  yet  it  is  not  always  possible  to  say  with  cer- 
tainty that  particular  events  and  discourses  of  his 
narrative  belong  in  these  months.  His  view  of  Jesus' 
activity  from  the  end  of  the  Galilean  ministry  till  the 
last  week  is  that  of  a  journeying  toward  Jerusalem, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  in  every  case  whether 
a  passage  belongs  to  the  Jerusalem  period  or  to  the 
Perean. 

Neither  of  the  evangelists  mentions  a  single  place 
in  Perea  by  name,  though  the  fourth  Gospel  says  that 
Jesus  abode  in   the  place  where  the  Baptist  first   bap-' 
tized. 

The  Perean  ministry  began  in  December,  after  the 
feast  of  Dedication  (John  x.  22,  39),  and  continued  till 

shortly  before  the   last   Passover,  that  is  about  three 

(298) 


THE    PEREAN    MINISTRY.  299 

months  (John  xi.  54-55).  A  certain  preparation  for 
work  in  this  district  had  been  made  by  John  the  Bap- 
tist, who  had  worked  on  its  border  (John  x.  40),  and 
whose  martyrdom  was  probably  within  its  hmits. 
Jesus  also  had  twice  been  in  Perea,  and  the  second 
time  had  become  widely  known  (Mark  v.  1-20;  vii. 
31-viii.  12).  The  ministry  of  Jesus  in  Perea  was 
like  that  in  Galilee.  He  taught  the  multitudes  re- 
garding the  kingdom  of  God  and  wrought  beneficent 
signs  (Mark  x.  i;  Luke  x.  17;  xiii.  32).  Yet  there 
was  in  His  teaching  a  tone  of  judgment  that  may 
have  owed  its  emphasis  to  the  nearness  of  His  suffer- 
ing in  Jerusalem  (Luke  xii.  49-53;  -"^iii-  6-9,  24-30; 
xiv.  24,  etc.). 

As  in  the  Galilean  ministry,  so  here  Jesus  came 
into  conflict  with  scribes  and  Pharisees  (Mark  x.  2; 
Luke  X.  25). 

[b)  The  Seventy.  The  mission  of  the  seventy  may 
most  easily  be  explained  as  a  part  of  the  ministry  in 
Perea.  It  cannot  well  have  been  in  connection  with 
the  journey  of  Jesus  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  for 
that  was  semi-private  (John  vii.  10).  It  must,  there- 
fore, have  fallen  in  the  later  period.^ 

It  is  intrinsically  probable  that  Jesus  should  have 

I  For  reasons  why  it  cannot  be  identified  with  the  mission  of  the 
twelve,  see  pages  124-126. 


300  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

wished,  in  the  brief  time  that  remained,  to  spread  as 
broadly  as  possible  through  the  large  Perean  region 
the  knowledge  of  His  kingdom.  The  pressure  arising 
from  the  nearness  of  the  end  may  have  led  to  the  send- 
ing of  seventy  instead  of  twelve.  This  mission  of  the 
seventy  disciples  may  very  probably  have  been  from 
that  place  where  Jesus,  according  to  John,  abode  on 
going  into  Perea  (John  x.  40). 

The  seventy  were  sent  out,  according  to  Luke, 
with  about  the  same  instructions  which  had  been  given 
to  the  twelve  (Luke  x.  1-12).  They  were  to  go  with 
speed,  and  in  simple  dependence  upon  God.  They 
were  to  heal  the  sick  and  preach  the  kingdom,  and 
thus  prepare  for  the  coming  of  Jesus.  This  address, 
which  Luke  represents  as  spoken  to  the  seventy,  may 
be  only  a  modified  version  of  the  address  to  the  twelve, 
but  as  their  ministry  was  essentially  the  same  as  that 
of  the  twelve,  the  address  may  fit  the  later  circum- 
stances as  well  as  the  earlier. 

The  mission  of  the  seventy  was  successful,  at  least 
in  its  work  of  healing  (Luke  x.  17).  They  came  back, 
perhaps  to  the  place  near  the  Jordan  whither  Jesus 
had  gone  from  Jerusalem,  and  reported  that  even  the 
demons  had  been  subject  to  them  in  Christ's  name. 
Presumably  they  had  also  accomplished  the  other  part 
of  their  task. 


THE    PEREAN    MINISTRY.  3OI 

The  mission  of  the  seventy,  as  Luke  presents  it, 
implies  that  Jesus  visited  many  cities  and  villages  in 
Perea  (Luke  x.   i). 

(c)  Perean  Incidents.  If  the  period  of  three  months 
spent  in  Perea  w^as  filled  with  Messianic  activity,  as 
we  may  infer  that  it  was,  then  tradition  seems  to  have 
preserved  but  little  out  of  those  days  and  weeks.  This 
may  have  been  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  the  early 
church  had  fewer  roots  in  Perea  than  in  Galilee  and 
Judea,  where  Jesus  had  lat^ored  much  longer;  and, 
possibly,  it  may  have  been  partly  due  to  the  character 
of  the  Perean  work  of  Jesus.  There  may  not  have 
been  much  that  presented  new  aspects  of  the  Messiah's 
teaching.  The  following  four  events  seem  to  belong 
to  the  trans-Jordanic  period. 

(i)  Question  of  Divo7'cc.  On  one  occasion,  Phari- 
sees came  to  Jesus  and  sought  to  involve  Him  in 
trouble  regarding  the  subject  of  divorce  (Mark  x.  2-12; 
Matt.  xix.  3-12).  It  is  most  probable  that  the  Pharisees 
hoped  to  get  an  expression  from  Jesus  which  would 
arouse  Herod  Antipas  against  Him.  John  the  Baptist 
had  been  arrested  because  he  condemned  Herod's  mar- 
riage with  Herodias,  and  the  Pharisees  knew  well  that 
Jesus  would  condemn  the  lax  views  of  marriage  which 
the  court  of  Herod  and  many  of  the  common  people 
held.  The  liberal  view,  which  was  the  popular  one,  went 


302  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

SO  far  as  to  hold  that  a  man  might  put  his  wife  away  if 
she  burnt  his  dinner,  or  if  he  saw  a  woman  he  hked 
better^  We  are  not  to  suppose  that,  the  practice  was 
often  as  bad  as  this  extreme  view,  but  without  doubt 
the  Hberalism  of  Hillel's  school  had  exerted  an  evil 
influence.  The  attempt  of  the  Pharisees,  however, 
was  not  successful,  for  though  Jesus  held  to  the  indis- 
solubleness  of  the  marriage-bond,  and  so  virtually  con- 
demned the  lax  view  on  the  subject,  he  did  so  in  the 
plain  language  of  Scripture,  which  they  could  not'gain- 
say. 

(2)  Blessing  Little  Children.  An  illustration  of 
the  esteem  in  which  Jesus  was  held  in  this  region  of 
Perea  was  furnished  by  the  fact  that  mothers  brought 
their  little  children  to  Him,  that  He  should  bless  them 
(Mark  x.  13-16;  Matt.  xix.  13-15;  Luke  xviii.  15-17). 
Behind  this  act  there  was  surely  a  belief  that  He  was 
a  holy  man,  and  that  He  was  kindly  disposed  and 
ready  to  speak  words  of  blessing.  The  incident 
suggests  that  Jesus  had  been  some  time  in  the  neigh- 
borhood, so  that  people  had  come  to  feel  acquainted 
with  Him.  Otherwise  the  mothers  would  not  have 
brought  their  babes  to  Him  for  His  touch  and  word  of 
benediction.  This  event  also  illustrates  how  imper- 
fectly the  disciples  of  Jesus  understood  Him,  for  they 

I   See  Stapfer,  Palestine  in  tJie  Time  of  Christ,  p.  152. 


THE    PEREAN    MINISTRY.  303 

presumed  to  rebuke  the  mothers,  perhaps  with  the 
thought  that  their  Master  had  more  important  work 
than  blessing  young  children.  But  the  prompt  indig- 
nation of  Jesus  must  have  shown  them  that  His  esti- 
mate of  the  importance  of  the  occasion  was  totally 
different  from  theirs.  He  welcomed  the  children,  * 
both  for  their  own  sakes  and  as  a  type  of  the  material 
of  which  the  kingdom  of  heaven  consists.  He  not 
only  blessed  them  but  blessed  them  fervently,  thus, 
as  it  were,  making  ample  reparation  to  the  mothers 
for  the  rebuke  they  had  received  from  His  disciples. 

(3)  TJie  Rich  Young  Ruler.  On  a  certain  occasion, 
as  Jesus  was  just  setting  out  on  His  journey,  a  young 
man  of  blameless  morality  of  the  legal  sort,  came  to 
Him  to  learn  how  he  might  obtain  eternal  life  (Mark 
X.  17-31;  Matt.  xix.  16-30;  Luke  xviii.  18-30).  The 
incident  is  interesting  biographically  because,  first,  in 
the  ensuing  conversation  Jesus  declined  the  predicate 
good,  saying  that  it  belonged  to  God  alone.  He  as  a 
man  subject  to  change  could  not  accept  the  term  in 
an  absolute  sense. 

This  saying  seems  to  have  been  early  regarded  as 
difficult,  for  in  Matthew  it  is  modified  and  reads, 
"  Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  the  good.^  "  And  yet 
it  is  not  strange  that  Jesus  rejected  the  epithet.  It  is 
rather    in   keeping   with    His  entire  character.      It  is 


304        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

true,  He   was   conscious   of   having   done    always  the 
things  that  were  pleasing  to  God.      He  was  conscious 
that  He  had  not  sinned.      But  he  was  conscious  also 
that  he  had  been  tempted  and  was  still  tempted;  that 
He   was  a  man   free   to  choose,    and  that  instead   of 
being  sufficient  unto  Himself,  He  depended  constantly 
upon  God  (John  v.   19).    Since  He  looked  up  to  God  as 
His  God  (John  xx.  17),  so  He  must  regard  Him  as  the 
only  absolutely  good  one.      And  second,  this  incident 
shows  the  insight  which  Jesus  had  into  the  hearts  of 
men.      He   saw   deep   down   beneath  the   surface  the 
dangerous  point  in  the  young  man's  character,  namely, 
his   attachment   to   his  wealth.      Therefore  He  tested 
him   at   this   point.      He   loved   him  (Mark  x.  21)  and 
would  have  been  glad  to  have  him  as  a  disciple,  but 
on    one    condition.      The  young  man  must  put   Him 
first,  and  be  willing  to  give  up  all  for  His  sake.      The 
correctness  of    Jesus'  estimate  of   the  young  man   is 
shown  by  the  result.     He  went  away  with  a  downcast 
and  sorrowful  face,  and  lost  his  divine  opportunity. 

(4)  Jes7is  and  Herod.  It  was  probably  while 
Jesus  was  in  Perea  that  the  Pharisees  reported  to 
Him  Herod's  desire  to  kill  Him  (Luke  xiii.  31).  From 
the  fact  that  Jesus  sent  a  message  to  Herod,  a  mes- 
sage showing  that  He  understood  his  crafty  character 
(Luke  xiii.  32),  and  was  not  afraid  of  his  power,  we 


THE    PEREAN    MINISTRY.  305 

may  infer  that  Herod  was  really  seeking  to  destroy 
Jesus,  and  that  the  report  was  not  simply  a  device  of 
the  Pharisees  to  entangle  Jesus.  On  what  grounds 
Herod  sought  to  kill  Jesus  we  are  not  told.  He  may 
have  feared  lest  Jesus  should  become  a  political 
leader  and  rob  him  of  his  power. 

Jesus  had  left  Jerusalem  because  men  sought  His 
life,  and  now  in  Perea  the  ruler  of  the  province 
wished  to  kill  Him.  It  is  not  strange  that  He  spoke 
words  on  this  occasion  which  showed  that  He  regarded 
the  end  as  very  near.  Bmt  He  felt  secure  from  the 
plot  of  Herod  while  the  time  appointed  Him  was  yet 
unfulfilled.  "I  cast  out  demons  and  perform  cures 
to-day  and  to-morrow."  "I  must  go  on  my  way 
to-day  and  to-morrow"  (Luke  x.  32-33).  He  felt 
sure  that  no  Herod  could  prevent  this.  Not  in  Perea 
at  Herod's  hand,  but  in  Jerusalem,  and  by  the  leaders 
of  His  own  people.  He  was  to  die,  and  thus  be  per- 
fected. This  will  be  on  the  tJiird  day,  that  is,  in  the 
immediate  future. 

The  Pharisees  who  told  Jesus  of  Herod's  purpose 
may  have  hoped  that  He  would  leave  Perea  and 
return  to  Judea,  where  He  might  the  more  easily  be 
destroyed  by  the  leaders.  There  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  they  told  Him  as  friends,  solicitous  for  His 

safety. 
20 


CHAPTER    XV. 
In  Bethany  and  Ephraim. 

(a)  In  Bethany.  Jesus  was  summoned  from  Perea 
b}'  the  death  of  Lazarus  (John  xi.  15).  This  may 
have  been  two  or  three  weeks  before  the  last  Pass- 
over. It  seems  probable  that  Jesus  had  become 
acquainted  with  the  family  in  Bethany  during  the 
Jerusalem  visit  from  September  to  December.  He 
was  especially  attached  to  this  home.  John  says  that 
He  loved  each  of  the  three  members  of  the  family 
(John  xi.  5).  It  was  perhaps  because  of  the  close 
relationship  between  them  that  the  family  knew 
where  Jesus  was,  and  so  could  send  a  messenger  to 
Him  when  Lazarus  was  sick. 

According  to  John,  Jesus  had  supernatural  knowl- 
edge regarding  the  course  of  events  in  Bethany  (John 
xi.  4,  11).  He  knew  before  setting  out  for  Judea  that 
Lazarus  was  dead,  and  that  He  should  raise  him  to 
life.  There  is  a  manifest  reason  why  such  knowledge 
was  given  to  Jesus,  and  why  Jesus  tarried  in  Perea  as 

He  did.      God  purposed  that  He  should  work  a  great 

( 306 ) 


IN  BETHANY  AND  EPHRAIM.  3O7 

miracle,  not  in  healing  Lazarus,  but  in  raising  him 
from  the  dead,  and  this  miracle  was  to  be  for  the 
strengthening  of  the  faith  of  the  disciples,  and  to  be 
a  last  mighty  call  to  Jerusalem  to  believe  in  Jesus 
(John  xi.   15,  45;  xii.  9-1 1). 

The  resurrection  of  Lazarus  is  important  biograph- 
ically  because,  first,  it  indicates  plainly  how  Jesus 
wrought  miracles.  Before  calhng  Lazarus  from  the 
tomb  He  thanked  God  that  He  had  heard  Him  (John 
xi.  41-42).  Thus  it  is  plain  that  Jesus  had  previously 
prayed  to  God,  and  the  situation  requires  us  to  think 
that  He  had  prayed  for  authority  to  raise  Lazarus. 
He  had  also  received  assurance  that  His  prayer  was 
answered.  Both  the  prayer  and  the  assurance  seem 
to  have  belonged  to  the  hour  in  which  the  messenger 
came  from  the  sisters  (John  xi.  4). 

Here  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  is  often  said  to  lay  ^ 
greater  stress  on  the  divinity  of  Jesus  than  the  other 
Gospels  do,  is  wholly  at  one  with  them.  What  was 
true  at  the  raising  of  Lazarus  we  must  assume  to 
have  been  true  in  all  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  there 
being  no  evidence  whatever  to  the  contrary.  They 
were  wrought  in  dependence  upon  the  Father,  and 
not  by  virtue  of  inherent  power  in  Jesus.  (Luke  xi. 
20;   Matt,  xii    28). 

Second,    the    resurrection  of   Lazarus   led    to   the 


308  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

first  ecclesiastical  action  against  Jesus.  When  the 
report  of  the  miracle  was  brought  to  the  priests  and 
Pharisees  they  gathered  a  council,  and  Caiaphas  advised 
the  death  of  Jesus  (John  xi.  47-53)-  From  that  time, 
according  to  John,  the  officials  sought  how  to  kill  Him. 
They  were  agreed  that  He  must  be  destroyed.  As 
the  governing  religious  body  they  informally  decreed 
the  death  of  Jesus. 

{b)  In  Ephraim.  Once  more  Jesus  withdrew  from 
the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  to  avoid  the  plots  of 
the  Jews.  The  city  called  Ephraim,  near  to  the  wil- 
derness (John  xi.  54),  is  located  by  Weiss  and  Bey- 
schlag  in  the  northeastern  corner  of  Judea,  by  Eder- 
sheim  in  the  northern  part  of  Perea.  It  is  plain  that 
Jesus  retired  to  the  place  to  escape  from  the  Jews, 
and  it  is  not  likely  that  His  place  of  retirement  was 
known.  Of  the  sojourn  in  Ephraim  we  know  noth- 
ing. It  was  probably  a  time  of  quiet  and  of  prepara- 
tion for  the  end. 

When  the  Passover  drew  near  and  the  caravans  of 
pilgrims  were  moving  up  to  Jerusalem,  Jesus  joined 
them  at  some  point  before  they  reached  Jericho  (Luke 
xviii.  35).  He  could  return  to  Jerusalem  with  His 
Galilean  countrymen,  for  He  had  in  their  presence  a 
bulwark  against  the  hatred  of  the  leaders.  He  doubt- 
less would  have  gone  in   any  case,  for  He  had  lon^ 


IN  BETHANY  AND  EPHRAIM.  3O9 

known  that  His  death  would  be  in  Jerusalem  (Luke 
xiii.  33),  but  it  was  natural  that  He  should  make  use 
of  His  Galilean  supporters. 

When  He  came  forth  from  His  retirement  in 
Ephraim,  the  old  cry  for  help  soon  reached  His  ear 
again.  Just  before  He  entered  Jericho  (Luke  xviii. 
35-43),  or  just  as  He  went  forth  from  the  town  (Mark 
X.  46-52;  Matt.  XX.  29-34),'  a  blind  man  who  had  heard 
of  Jesus  before,  and  who  believed  Him  to  be  the  Son 
of  David,  called  on  Him  for  mercy,  and  at  the  word 
of  Jesus  received  his  sight.  The  incident  is  like  that 
of  the  Canaanitish  woman  in  this  particular,  that 
those  about  Jesus  sought  to  silence  the  man. 

Jesus  stopped  in  Jeri-eho  over  night  (Luke  xix.  5), 
and  owed  His  entertainment  to  the  chance  acquaint- 
ance which  He  made  with  a  rich  tax-gatherer  by  the 
name  of  Zacchaeus  (Luke  xix.  i-io).  He  saw  this 
man  in  a  tree  as  He  was  passing  through  the  town,  and 
noticing  the  unusual  interest  which  Zacchaeus  had  in 
Him,  He  at  once  responded  to  it  by  giving  Zacchaeus 
an  opportunity  to  entertain  Him.  This  opportunity 
was  gladly  embraced,  and  Zacchaeus  took  Jesus  to  his 
home.      The  act  of  Jesus  was  widely  criticized   (Luke 

I  Possibly  to  be  harmonized  by  the  fact  that  there  were  two 
towns  near  to  each  other,  the  older  Jericho  and  the  new  city 
{Phasaelus)  which  Herod  the  Great  had  built,  but  more  probably  to 
be  regarded  as  two  different  versions. 


310        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

xix.  7).      People   felt  that   it  was  wrong  for  Jesus  to 
lodge    with    a    sinner.     So    at    the  beginning   of    the 
ministry    in   Galilee,  scribes  and  Pharisees  arraigned 
Jesus  before   His   disciples   because  he  ate  with   tax- 
gatherers  and  sinners  (Mark  ii.   16-17).    And  although 
He  had  manifested  this  spirit  during  His  entire  minis- 
try, here  near  its  close   all  those  around  Him,  chiefly 
Galileans,    murmured    at    His   conduct.      They   could 
not   reconcile    it   with  His  claim,    which   shows    how 
poorly  they  appreciated   the   claim  itself.      They  did 
not  know  that  the   great   work  of  the  Messiah  was  to 
deliver  men   from   sin.      Hence  the  strange   fact  that 
no  one,  as   far  as   our  records   inform  us,  ever  asked 
Jesus  to  forgive  his  sin.      But  the  act  of  Jesus  in  lodg- 
ing with  Zacchaeus  was  amply  justified  by  the  result. 
Before  He  left  the  house,    Zacchaeus,    under   a  new 
impulse,  begotten   by  the   presence   of  the    Lord,  de- 
clared that  he   would   give  half  of  his    goods  to   the 
poor,  and  would  restore  fourfold,  if  in  any  case  he  had 
collected  larger  taxes  than  were  right.     Thus  salvation 
had  come  to    his   house,  and  was  already  manifesting 
itself  in  the  outward  life. 


CHAPTER   XVI. 

The  Last  Eight  Days. 

{a)  The  Data.  About  thirty-six  per  cent  of  the 
combined  narrative  of  the  four  Gospels  is  concerned 
with  the  last  eight  days  of  Christ's  life  and  with  His 
resurrection.  The  percentage  is  largest  in  the  Gospel 
of  John  and  smallest  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  Various 
circumstances  help  to  explain  the  large  amount  of 
space  given  to  the  story  of  these  days.  First,  Jesus 
seems  to  have  filled  the  closing  days  with  intense 
activity,  both  as  regards  the  Jews,  whom  He  sought 
to  save,  and  as  regards  His  disciples,  whom  He  sought 
to  prepare  for  His  death.  Second,  the  events  and 
words  of  the  last  days  of  Jesus  would  naturally  im- 
press themselves  most  deeply  on  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  the  disciples,  and  so  when  the  time  to  write  of 
them  came,  a  fuller  narrative  could  be  produced  than 
could  be  written  of  other  periods  of  His  life.  Third, 
the  apostolic  church  from  the  beginning  regarded  the 
death  of  Jesus  as  of  fundamental  importance,  and  for 
this  reason  dwelt  with   peculiar  interest  on  the  events 

immediately  connected  with  it. 

(311) 


312        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

{b)     Friday   and  Saturday   before  the   Crucifixion. 

The  Synoptists  make  no  break  in  the  journey  from 
Jericho  to  Jerusalem  (Mark  x.  46-xi.  i ;  Matt.  xxi.  i ; 
Luke  xix.  28-29).  They  narrate  the  triumphal  entry 
in  immediate  connection  with  the  journey  from  Jericho 
to  Bethany,  as  though  lit  fell  on  the  same  day  and 
were  the  close  of  the  journey.  But  John  says  explic- 
itly that  Jesus  came  to  Bethany  six  days  before  the 
Passover,  and  it  is  plain  from  his  narrative  that  Jesus 
tarried  there  a  little  while  (John  xii.  2,   12). 

The  sixth  day  before  the  Passover  began  on 
Friday  evening  of  the  preceding  week,  and  at  this 
time  Jesus  and  His  disciples  reached  Bethany.  The 
supper  which  was  made  for  Him  in  the  house  of 
Simon  the  leper  (Mark  xiv.  3)  may  most  naturally  be 
placed  on  the  following  day,  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 
This  is  partially  confirmed  by  the  statement  in  John 
that  Jesus  was  in  Bethany  long  enough  for  the  fact  to 
become  known  to  the  common  people  in  Jerusalem, 
so  that  they  came  out  to  Bethany  to  see  Jesus  and 
Lazarus  (John  xii.  9-1 1).  So  we  are  required  to  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  on  His  way  to  Jerusalem  stopped  in 
Bethany  over  the  Sabbath. 

Two  events  of  this  Sabbath  in  Bethany  are  bio- 
graphically  important.  (i)  A  supper  was  made  for 
Jesus  at   which    Mary   anointed   His    feet    and  wiped 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  313 

them   with    her  hair   (John   xii.    i-8;   Mark   xiv.    3-9; 
Matt.  xxvi.  6-13).      The  ointment  used  was  valued  at 
about  fifty  dollars,  and  some  of  the   disciples,  especi- 
ally Judas,  murmured   at  what  they  thought  wasteful 
extravagance.      Jesus- however  rebuked  them,  saying 
that  they  would  not  always  have  Him  with  them,  and 
that  the  anointing  was  in   anticipation  of   His  burial. 
Thus  even  at  a  social  feast  He  turned  the  thought  of 
His  disciples  to  His  death.      From  this  it  seems  prob- 
able that  He  lost  no  opportunity  in  these  closing  days, 
of  preparing  His   disciples  for  His   approaching  end. 
Of  this  anointing  we  have  three  accounts,  which  differ 
in  many  details  but  agree  in  essential  points.      Simon 
the  host   is   designated  tJie  leper,    and   was    probably 
a  monument  of  Christ's  miraculous  power.      He  was 
perhaps  related  to  Lazarus  and  his  sisters.      The  Syn- 
optists  represent  Mary  as  anointing  the  head  of  Jesus; 
John  represents  her  as  anointing  His  feet,  this  being 
perhaps  a  more  forcible   evidence   of  her  love  (Luke 
vii.  38).      But   neither  act   excludes   the   other.      The 
suggestion    that   the    ointment    may   have   been   pur- 
chased   to    anoint    Lazarus,    but  was    not   needed   as 
Jesus   raised   him  from   the   dead,    has   against  it  that 
such  anointing  of  the  body  would  surely  not  have  been 
left  until  the  fourth  day.      Further,  it  is  not  probable 
that  so  large    an   amount   of  ointment  remained  after 


314  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

the  body  had  been  anointed.  It  is  therefore  to  be 
regarded  as  purchased  especially  for  the  anointing  of 
Jesus. 

(2)  It  may  well  have  been  on  this  Sabbath  that 
Judas  bargained  with  the  chief  priests  to  betray  Jesus 
(Mark  xiv.  lo-ii;  Matt.  xxvi.  14-16;  Luke  xxii.  3-6). 
The  Synoptists  mention  this  in  connection  with  the 
supper  in  Simon's  house;  and  the  statement  that  Judas 
was  seeking  (imperfect  tense)  to  deliver  Jesus  to  them 
is  favorable  to  the  view  that  he  had  the  plot  in  mind 
at  least  so  long  as  from  the  Sabbath  until  Thursday. 
The  rebuke  which  he  with  others  had  received  from 
Jesus  at  Simon's  house,  and  the  explicit  reference  by 
Jesus  to  His  own  burial,  may  have  been  the  last  influ- 
ences which  sent  him  to  the  high  priests.  It  had  been 
growing  more  and  more  plain  to  him  since  the  crisis 
in  Capernaum  that  Jesus  was  not  the  Messiah  accord- 
ing to  the  popular  expectation,  which  expectation 
Judas  may  well  have  shared.  He  saw  that  the  fate 
of  Jesus  was  settled,  and  he  might  argue  that  his  own 
action  would  not  alter  matters.  At  the  same  time, 
Jesus'  extremity  was  his  opportunity.  If  the  fate  of 
Jesus  was  settled  beyond  a  peradventure,  he  might  as 
well  turn  it  to  his  own  account  if  he  could. 

{c)     Sunday   of  the   Last  Week,      (i)     The   Escort 
from    Jerusalem.      The   great   question   in   the    days 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  315 

before  the  last  Passover,  as  people  met  in  the  tem- 
ple, was  whether  Jesus  would  come  to  the  feast  (John 
^i-  5 5" 5 7)-  The  resurrection  of  Lazarus  two  or  three 
weeks  before  had  created  the  deepest  interest,  both 
friendly  and  hostile.  There  were  many  among  the 
pilgrims  and  some  of  the  Jerusalemites  who,  though 
little  understanding  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  were  ready  to 
hail  Him  as  the  Son  of  David;  but  the  dominant  ele- 
ments in  Jerusalem  were  organized  to  kill  Him.  The 
leaders  issued  an  order  before  the  Passover,  probably 
while  Jesus  was  still  hiding  in  Ephraim,  that  if  any 
man  knew  where  Jesus  was  he  should  make  it  known 
(John  xi.  57).  This  was  the  secojid  ecclesiastical 
action  against   Him. 

With  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week 
(Sunday)  a  great  multitude  took  palm-branches  and 
went  forth  from  Jerusalem  to  meet  Jesus  (John  xii. 
12-19).  They  knew  that  He  had  come  to  Bethany, 
and  had  heard  that  He  was  coming  to  Jerusalem.  So 
they  went  forth  ready  to  welcome  Him  as  the  King 
of  Israel.  The  palm-branches  in  their  hands  were 
probably  a  symbol  of  gladness  (Lev.  xxiii.  40;  Rev. 
vii.  9). 

The  Synoptists  do  not  mention  this  escort  from 
the  city,  but  their  language  implies  it  when  they  speak 
of  throngs  going  before  Jesus  as  well  as  of  throngs  who 


3j6  the  student's  life  of  jesus. 

followed  Him  (Mark  xi.  9;  Matt.  xxi.  9).  Those 
going  before  are  the  multitude  who,  according  to 
John,  came  forth  to  meet  Jesus.  On  meeting  Him. 
they  turned  about  and  formed  the  head  of  the  proces- 
sion. Jesus  was  then  in  the  midst,  His  disciples  and 
friends  from  Bethany  following. 

(2)  TJie  Messiaiiic  Eyitry.  Jesus  left  Bethany  on 
foot,  but  at  some  point,  perhaps  on  reaching  the  brow 
of  Olivet  w^hence  He  saw  the  multitudes  with  palm- 
branches  coming  to  meet  Him,  He  halted  and  sent 
two  of  His  disciples  to  bring  a  young  ass  (Mark  xi. 
i;  Matt.  xxi.  i;  Luke  xix.  29).  It  seems  probable 
that  Jesus  adopted  this  mode  of  entering  Jerusalem 
in  memory  of  the  words  of  Zechariah  (ix.  9),  which 
He  regarded  as  being  fulfilled  by  Him.  The  disci- 
ples, however,  saw  no  special  significance  in  it  until 
a  later  day  (John  xii.   16). 

BeyschlagMs  of  the -opinion  that  the  Synoptists 
represent  Jesus  as  niiyacidously  procuring  the  ass,  an 
idea  which  is  certainly  not  found  in  John's  narrative. 
But  this  difficulty  does  not  appear  to  be  a  necessary 
one.  The  Synoptic  narrative  allow^s  us  to  suppose 
that  the  village  over  against  you  was  Bethany,  which 
they  had  just  left;  and  when  Jesus  tells  His  disciples 
to  say  to  the  owner  that   tJie  lord  has  need  of  it,  it   is 

I   Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  374. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  317 

implied  that  the  owner  would  know  who  was  meant 
by  this  designation;  in  other  words,  that  he  was  a 
friend  of  Jesus  (Mark  xi.  3;  Matt.  xxi.  3;  Luke  xix. 
31).  Jesus  may  have  seen  the  ass  as  He  came  out 
from  Bethany,  or  He  may  have  seen  it  from  where  He 
stood  when  He  sent  the  disciples.  Therefore  it  is  not 
necessary  to  hold  that  the  Synoptists  regarded  the 
securing  of  the  ass  as  miraculous. 

Matthew's  representation  that  there  was  an  ass 
and  also  its  colt,  and  that  Jesus  sat  upon  tJicin,  seems 
to  be  a  modification  of  the  narrative  due  to  a  mis- 
understanding of  the  prophetic  passage  which  the  dis- 
ciples afterward  saw  fulfilled  in  the  triumphal  entry 
(John  xii.  16).  Zechariah  manifestly  speaks  of  but 
one  ass,  which  was  all  that  was  needed  for  one  person 
to  ride,  but  he  speaks  of  this  tivice  in  the  parallelism 
of  his  joyful  words.  This  fact  probably  gave  rise 
to  the  view  in  Matthew's  Gospel. 

Seated  on  the  ass,  Jesus  moved  toward  Jerusalem, 
preceded  and  followed  by  excited  and  jubilant  throngs. 
He  was  hailed  as  the  Son  of  David  and  the  king  of 
Israel.  Mention  was  made  of  His  mighty  works,  and 
the  kingdom  of  David  was  hailed  as  now  at  hand 
(Luke  xix.  37).  For  one  hour  the  multitudes  verily 
thought  that  they  had  the  Messiah  of  their  long  and 
fond   hopes.       The  scene  was    somewhat  parallel  to 


3l8        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

that  by  Lake  Galilee  when,  after  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand,  the  people  wanted  to  make  jesus  their 
king. 

But  really  the  Messiah  of  their  hopes  should  have 
entered  the  city  on  a  fiery  horse,  the  animal  used  in 
war,  and  not  on  an  ass,  the  symbol  rather  of  peace. 

This  entry  was  not  without  its  sharp  contrast,  as 
was  the  life  of  Jesus  throughout.  For  here  in  the 
midst  of  the  jubilation,  Jesus  wept  (Luke  xix.  41-44). 
He  well  knew  that  the  city  which  he  was  entering  in 
triumph  was  at  heart  opposed  to  Him,  and  He  saw 
what  this  opposition  would  bring  upon  it  in  coming 
days.  Jerusalem  was  more  to  Him,  as  to  every  true 
Jew,  than  any  other  city.  It  was  the  city  of  His 
fathers,  the  city  of  Jehovah,  the  city  of  many  holy 
memories,  and  therefore  at  the  thought  of  its  fate  He 
wept. 

The  only  discordant  note  in  the  midst  of  the  com- 
mon rejoicing  was  the  voice  of  some  Pharisees,  who 
wished  Jesus  to  quiet  the  shouting  (Luke  xix.  39-40). 
He  replied  that  the  praise  was  fitting,  that  it  was  His 
due,  an  obligation  so  imperative  that,  were  it  not  met, 
the  stones  might  cry  out.  When  Jesus  entered  the 
city  and  moved  toward  the  temple,  the  city  was  greatly 
stirred.  The  question  was  heard  on  every  hand,  "Who 
is    this?"    (Matt.    xxi.    10).      And  the  answer  came: 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  319 

''This  is  the  prophet,  Jesus,  from  Nazareth  of  Gah- 
lee."  It  was  perfectly  manifest  that  the  accompany- 
ing throngs  beheved  Him  to  be  more  than  a  prophet, 
but  they  gave  this  personal  and  local  designation  be- 
cause that  was  just  what  the  questioners  wanted  to 
know.  They  wanted  to  find  out  who  was  being  hailed 
as  Messiah. 

It  may  well  have  been  on  this  first  day  of  the 
week  that  Jesus,  who  had  entered  the  city  as  the 
Messiah,  wrought  the  cures  which  Matthew  records 
(Matt.  xxi.  14).  The  blind  and  the  lame  came  to 
Him,  and  He  healed  them.  These  were  the  last  acts 
of  healing,  and  the  only  ones  which  the  record  puts 
in  the  temple. 

The  chief  priests  and  scribes,  who  could  not  openly 
seize  Jesus  when  He  was  surrounded  by  such  throngs 
of  enthusiastic  followers,  rebuked  Him  for  allowing 
the  children  to  salute  Him  as  the  Son  of  David.  TJiey 
did  not  consider  Him  the-  Son  of  David,  and  thought 
He  had  no  right  to  consider  Himself  in  that  light 
(Matt.  xxi.  15-16).  His  answer  was  a  justification  of 
the  children  from  the  eighth  Psalm.  God  is  praised 
even  by  babes  and  sucklings  (Ps.  viii.  2).  Much  more 
is  He  praised  in  the  praises  rendered  to  His  Son  by 
these  children,  who  are  old  enough  to  shout  intelli- 
gent hosannas  to  the  Son  of  David. 


320         THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

{d)  Monday,  Tuesday  and  Wednesday  of  the  Last 
Week.  It  seems  plain  that  Jesus  spent  Thursday  of 
the  last  week  outside  the  city,  but  it  is  not  certain 
whether  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  was  the  last  day  of 
public  activity  in  Jerusalem  (Mark  xiv.  12-17).  I 
assume  that  he  continued  His  teaching  until  Wednes- 
day, which  He  certainly  could  do  as  far  as  the  hostil- 
ity of  the  Pharisees  was  concerned,  because  the  com- 
mon people  were  so  largely  in  sympathy  with  Him. 
The  leaders  feared  to  seize  Him  during  the  feast,  lest 
there  should  be  a  tumult.  It  is  impossible  to  assign  to 
different  days  the  various  events  which  certainly  fell 
between  Monday  morning  and  Wednesday  night,  with 
a  few  exceptions,  nor  is  this  important.  We  will  con- 
sider these  events  in  the  following  order. 

(i)  PreacJiing  the  Kingdom.  According  to  Luke 
Jesus  taught  daily  in  the  temple  during  the  last  week, 
and  people  hung  upon  Him  in  rapt  attention  (Luke 
xix.  48).  They  came  early  in  the  morning  to  hear 
Him  (Luke  xxi.  38).  Luke  does  not  give  the  content 
of  one  of  these  last  sermons  to  the  people,  neither 
does  Matthew  nor  Mark;  yet  we  are  doubtless  right 
in  holding  that  Jesus  preached  the  Gospel  of  His  king- 
dom even  as  He  had  been  doing  for  two  years.  He 
taught  what  the  kingdom  was,  and  told  his  hearers 
concerning  its  king.      John  preserves  the  substance  of 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  321 

one  of  these  addresses,  in  which  Jesus  declared  His 
pecuHar  relation  to  God  as  one  sent  by  Him  with 
power  to  save  the  world  (John  xii.  44-50).  His 
word  is  God's  word,  and  to  reject  it  now  means  that 
one  must  be  judged  by  it  hereafter. 

The  words  spoken  by  Jesus  when  certain  Greeks 
came  to  see  Him  may  also  be  taken  as  expressing 
thoughts  that  filled  His  heart  during  these  days  (John 
xii.  20-36).  He  spoke  of  Himself  as  the  light  of  the 
world,  and  called  on  men  to  walk  in  His  light.  His 
words  were  full  of  allusions  to  His  near  death,  though 
in  symbolical  form.  Now,  for  the  first  time.  He  speaks 
of  the  hour  of  His  death  as  the  hour  of  His  glorifica- 
tion (John  xii.  23,  28).  He  is  as  the  kernel  of  grain 
which  through  death  bears  a  harvest  (John  xii.  24). 
Yet  He  cannot  contemplate  this  way  to  the  consum- 
mation without  inward  struggle.  His  soul  was 
troubled  (John  xii.  27).  Should  He  ask  to  be  saved 
from  the  hour.^  The  query  was  human  and  natural. 
But  He  recognized  that  His  course  had  been  tending 
to  this  very  end,  and  therefore  He  would  not  ask  to 
be  saved  from  it.  His  prayer  is  rather  that  through 
it  God  would  glorify  His  own  name,  that  is.  His 
character.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Jesus'  hopefulness 
for  the  future  of  His  cause  found  its  sublimest  expres- 
sion.     By  the   side  of   His  own  glorification,  and   diio 

21 


322  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

to  the  same  cause,  that  is,  His  death.  He  sees  the 
judgment  of  the  prince  of  the  world,  the  casting  him 
out  of  his  dominion.  But  in  proportion  as  this  is 
accomphshed,  all  men  will  be  drawn  unto  Jesus. 
Such  was  the  fair  vision  He  had  even  in  the  shadow 
of  the  cross. 

(2)  Wai'iiijtgs.  Matthew  and  Mark  relate  how, 
as  Jesus  went  into  Jerusalem  Monday  morning,  He 
approached  a  green  fig-tree  in  the  hope  of  getting 
fruit  (Mark  xi.  12-14;  Matt.  xxi.  18-19).  Finding 
none,  He  then  solemnly  declared  that  no  one  should 
ever  eat  fruit  from  it.  It  was  not  then  the  season  for 
figs,  but  one  might  expect  them  since  this  particular 
tree  had  put  forth  leaves,  and  in  the  fig-tree  there 
should  be  fruit  when  there  are  leaves. 

As  on  another  occasion  (Luke  xiii.  6),  so  here,  the 
fig-tree  symbolized  the  Jewish  nation.  This  also  had 
put  forth  leaves,  in  that  it  had  at  first  accepted  Jesus; 
but  it  had  borne  no  fruit  of  repentance  and  spiritual 
faith  in  Him.  In  figurative  language  Jesus  speaks  the 
approaching  doom  of  this  nation,  or  rather  of  that 
generation  of  the  Jewish  people. 

On  the  morning  after  this  incident  (Mark  xi.  20), 
as  Jesus  and  His  disciples  went  to  the  city,  the  fig  tree 
was  dry  and  withered.      Weiss  ^  calls  this  a  miracle  of 

I   Das  Leben  Jesu,  ii.  458. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  323 

God,  a  concrete  endorsement  of  the  word  which  Jesus 
had  spoken  regarding  the  Jewish  people.  Beyschlag 
is  in  doubt  whether  the  story  is  not  based  on  Luke 
xiii.  6-9,  a  fictitious  miracle  based  on  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  that  parable.  But,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the 
lesson  of  Luke's  parable  is  that  the  Jewish  people 
have  still  a  little  time  for  repentance.  Judgment  is 
threatened,  but  is  not  just  at  hand.  Therefore  its 
teaching  is  different  from  that  of  the  fig-tree  which 
withered.  Here  there  is  no  longer  space  for  repent- 
ance. 

As  to  the  other  view,  that  of  Weiss,  it  seems  to  be 
contrary  to  the  constant  teaching  of  the  Gospels. 
These  know  only  of  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus,  or  more 
exactly  by  God  through  Jesus.  They  do  not  know  of 
miracles  wrought  directly  by  God  without  the  agency 
of  Jesus.  Therefore  the  fate  of  the  fig-tree,  if  that 
fate  was  miraculously  caused,  must  be  regarded  as 
caused  by  Jesus.  It  is  perhaps  conceivable  that  its 
withering  was  due  to  some  natural  cause,  in  which 
case  its  fate  was  a  providential  confirmation  of  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  but  not  a  miracle. 

In  line  with  the  lesson  of  the  fig-tree  are  the  para- 
bles of  judgment  which  belong  in  the  last  three  days. 
These  are  the   parables    of    The    Vineyard  (Mark  xii. 

I   Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  303. 


324         THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

I-I2;  Matt.  xxi.  33-46;  Luke  xx.  9-19),  The  Kings 
Mm^riage  Feast  (Matt.  xxii.  1-14;  Luke  xiv.  15-24), 
and  that  of  TJie  Unlike  Sons  QAdXi.  xxi.  28-32).  These 
seem  to  have  been  spoken  in  the  hearing  of  Pharisees 
and  priests,  and  to  have  been  primarily  for  them.  All 
reflect 'the  near  doom  of  the  Jewish  people,  which  was 
coming  upon  them  because  they  had  refused  the  invi- 
tation of  Jesus,  and  were  about  to  put  Him  to  death. 
The  parable  of  TJie  Unlike  Sons  sets  forth  just 
the  thought  which  was  illustrated  by  the  fig-tree  that 
promised  well  but  gave  no  fruit.  For  the  Jewish 
people  are  here  likened  to  the  son  who  said  he  would 
go  but  went  not.  They  had  welcomed  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  but  it  was  only  v/ith  their  lips. 

Before  leaving  the  temple  for  the  last  time  (Tues- 
day or  Wednesday),  and  in  the  hearing  of  all  the 
people  (Luke  xx.  45),  Jesus  warned  the  multitudes 
regarding  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  (Mark  xii.  40; 
Matt,  xxiii.  13-31;  Luke  xi.  39-52;  xx.  46-47).  He 
charged  them  with  hypocrisy  in  all  their  religious  life, 
with  shutting  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  those  who 
would  like  to  enter,  with  evil  influence  on  their  prose- 
lytes, with  spiritual  blindness,  with  neglect  of  the 
great  matters  of  the  law  while  they  were  painfully 
particular  in  unimportant  details,  and  with  building 
monuments  to  the   prophets   whom   their   fathers  had 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  325 

slain,  while  they  themselves  killed  other  prophets.  He 
closed  His  denunciation  with  words  declaring  the  cer- 
taint}'  of  severest  judgment. 

The  fact  that  Jesus  could  thus,  in  the  very  temple, 
denounce  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the  most  scath- 
ing terms,  suggests  that  He  must  have  had  a  consider- 
able following. 

(3)  TJie  Opposition.  The  easy  superiority  of 
Jesus  over  the  combined  shrewdness  of  scribes,  phari- 
sees,  Sadducees,  Herodians,  and  priests,  as  well  as 
the  vigor  with  which  the  enemies  sought  to  compass 
His  ruin  in  these  last  days,  appears  in  the  series  of 
questions  put  to  Him  by  the  leaders. 

(3a)  The  Question  of  Authority.  A  concerted 
effort  was  made  by  priests,  scribes  and  elders  to  de- 
stroy Jesus'  influence  with  the  people  by  showing  that 
He  had  no  authority  for  His  course  (Mark  xi.  27-33; 
Matt.  xxi.  23-27;  Luke  xx.  1-8).  He  had  not  received 
rabbinic  ordination.  They  came  upon  Him  suddenly 
in  the  temple,  and  challenged  Him  to  produce  His 
clredentials.  Jesus  silenced  them  with  a  counter  ques- 
tion to  which  they  could  not  answer  yes  or  no  without 
-either  stultifying  themselves  or  bringing  upon  them 
the  hostility  of  the  people.  He  asked  after  the 
source  of  John's  baptism.  Their  own  hostile  attitude 
toward   John  did  not  allow  them  to  say  that   his  bap- 


326  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

tism  was  from  heaven.  They  saw  that  if  they  admitted 
this,  Jesus  might  turn  upon  them,  and  ask  why  they 
had  not  received  Him.  And  their  fear  of  the  people 
who  held  John  to  be  a  true  prophet  prevented  their 
saying  that  his  baptism  was  of  human  origin,  as  in 
their  hearts  they  would  have  liked  to  do.  When  Jesus 
had  silenced  them.  He  declared  that  the  publicans  and 
harlots  would  be  saved  sooner  than  they.  For  the 
publicans  and  harlots  had  been  moved  to  repentance 
by  John,  while  tJiey  had  not  believed  him  (Matt.  xxi. 
31-32).  There  is  a  saying  of  Luke  which  may  belong 
here  (vii.  29-30),  and  if  so,  then  some  of  the  people, 
even  some  of  the  publicans  whom  John  had  baptized, 
were  present  and  heard  how  Christ  silenced  the  Phari- 
sees and  scribes.  Naturally  they  were  pleased,  and 
glorified  God. 

(3b)  The  Question  of  Tribute.  A  second  attempt  to 
gain  advantage  over  Jesus  was  made  on  one  of  these  three 
days  by  disciples  of  the  Pharisees  and  by  Herodians 
(Mark  xii.  13-17;  Matt.  xxii.  15-22;  Luke  xx.  20-26). 
These  were  mutual  enemies,  but  they  were  united  by 
a  greater  common  enemy.  They  first  sought  by  flat- 
tery of  Jesus  to  establish  a  friendly  feeling  toward 
themselves,  and  then  they  put  the  question  whether  it 
was  lawful  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar.  They  hoped  ta 
catch  Him  howsoever  He  might  answer.    If  He  said  jt'.>\ 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  327 

the  Pharisees  might  charge  Him  with  being  a  traitor 
to  His  people;  and  if  He  said  no,  the  Herodians  might 
bring  a  political  accusation  against  Him.  So  in  either 
case  He  would  be  entrapped.  This  time  also  He 
silenced  His  enemies  with  an  answer  which  recog- 
nized the  claims  both  of  Jehovah  and  Caesar.  If  the 
Pharisees  had  said  that  nothing  at  all  should  be  ren- 
dered to  Caesar,  then  the  coins  in  their  own  hands 
would  have  testified  against  them. 

(3c)  TJie  Question  of  the  Resnrreetion.  The 
Sadducees  sought  to  entangle  Jesus  by  showing  the 
inconsistency  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
which  they  knew  that  He  held  in  common  with  the 
Pharisees  (Mark  xii.  18-27;  Matt.  xxii.  23-33;  Luke  xx. 
27-38).  They  laid  before  Him  the  case  of  a  woman 
who  had  had  seven  legal  husbands,  and  asked  to 
which  of  them  she  would  belong  in  the  resurrection. 
They  thought  this  simple  case  reduced  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  to  an  absurdity.  They  assume  that 
she  cannot  belong  to  all  of  the  seven,  for  that  would 
be  contrary  to  the  law  of  Moses,  which  law  they 
supposed  to  be  binding  in  eternity;^  and  they  as- 
sume that  she  must  belong  to  one  of  them.  Jesus 
met  the  case  with  the  statement  that  in  the  resur- 
rection   the    old    earthly    relations    are   discontinued. 

I  See  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Tahniids,  p.  18. 


328        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

People  no  longer  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but 
they  are  as  angels.  The  Sadducees  had  assumed  that 
if  there  be  a  future  world,  the  same  order  of  things 
must  obtain  there  as  in  the  present.  Thus  they  had 
limited  the  power  of  God  (Mark  xii.  24).  Jesus  sim- 
ply denied  the  truth  of  their  premises,  and  their  case 
fell  to  the  ground. 

He  then  proceeds  to  give  a  Scripture  proof  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  He  takes  His  text  from  the 
law  which  they  also  claimed  to  believe.  He  referred 
them  to  Jehovah's  words  out  of  the. bush  to  Moses: 
''I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob"  (Ex.  iii.  6).^  If,  then,  Jehovah 
designated  Himself  as  the  God  of  these  men,  they 
must  be  living,  for  otherwise  God  would  designate 
Himiself  by  His  relation  to  dead  men.  But  Jesus 
takes  it  as  self-evident  that  the  living  God  is  the  God 
of  the  living.  He  could  not  speak  of  Himself  as  the 
God  of  Abraham  if  Abraham  was  non-existent. 

(3d)  TJic  Question  of  the  Greatest  Commandment. 
Yet  a  fourth  time  His  enemies  sought  to  discredit 
Jesus  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  by  getting  an  advantage 
over  Him  in  controversy  (Mark  xii.  28-34;  Matt.  xxii. 
34-40;  Luke  XX.  39-40;  X.  25-28).  The  Pharisees 
sent  a  scribe  to  ask  Him  which  was  the  greatest  com- 


I   See  Erich  Haupt,  Die  Alttestaincntlicheyi  Citate,  etc  ,  p.   197. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  329 

mandment  in  the  law.  It  appears  from  Mark's  narra- 
tive that  this  scribe  was  not  himself  deeply  hostile  to 
Jesus  (Mark  xii.  34).  This  may  have  been  part  of 
the  shrewd  plan  of  the  Pharisees.  They  may  have 
hoped  in  this  way  to  disarm  Jesus  of  any  suspicion 
He  might  have  regarding  the  question.  The  answer 
of  Jesus  to  the  question  was  such  a  comprehensive 
summing  up  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  appealed  so 
directly  to  all  that  was  noble  in  men,  that  the  Phari- 
sees were  again  without  advantage  over  Him. 

It  may  well  have  been  on  this  occasion  when  His 
enemies  sought  to  entangle  Him  with  hard  questions, 
that  He  in  turn  asked  them  the  question  of  Christ's 
relation. to  David  (Mark  xii.  35-37;  Matt.  xxii.  41-46; 
Luke  XX.  41-44).  The  Pharisees  promptly  replied 
that  Christ  was  the  son  of  David.  Jesus  then  asked 
them  how  David  could  call  Him  Lord,  citing  the 
language  of  the  iioth  Psalm.  No  one  was  able  to 
answer  this  question,  and  so  the  victory  was  wholly  on 
the  side  of  Jesus.  In  all  the  five  encounters  He  had 
silenced  His  adversaries.  No  wonder  that  th.e  com- 
mon people  listened  with  great  satisfaction  while 
Jesus  thus  stopped  the  mouths  of  scribes  and  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  (Mark  xii.  37). 

(4)      Tlic  Discourse  on  Olivet.      In   tracing  briefly 
the  life  of  Jesus  we  have    to    notice   the   discourse  on 


330  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

Olivet,  the  so-called  Eschatological  Discourse,  but  only 
in  a  general  manner.  It  concerned  primarily  the  life 
and  fortunes  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  in  the  times  sub- 
sequent to  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection.  Yet  it 
has  a  certain  biographical  value,  which  should  be 
noticed,  and  it  may  be  fitting  also  to  consider  the 
general  trend  and  character  of  the  teaching. 

(4a)  Biographical  Value.  The  discourse  on  Olivet 
(Mark  xiii.  3-37;  Matt.  xxiv.  3-51;  Luke  xxi.  5-36) 
shows  that  Jesus  had  a  supernatural  knowledge  of  the 
future,  and  also  that  there  was  a  limit  to  this  knowl- 
edge. He  foresaw  that  the  temple  would  be  utterly 
destroyed,  and  that  this  would  happen  within  that 
generation  (Mark  xiii.  2,  30).  He  foresaw  also  that 
He  should  come  again  in  glory  to  gather  His  elect  to 
Himself  and  to  judge  the  wicked  (Mark  xiii.  24-27; 
Matt.  xxiv.  29-31;  Luke  xxi.  25-28).  But  He  declared 
that  He  did  not  know  the  day  or  the  hour  of  His  com- 
ing (Mark  xiii.  32;  Matt.  xxiv.  36).  This  statement 
alone  is  fatal  to  the  view  that  Christ,  zvhilc  on  earth, 
was  omniscient.  Where  His  knowledge  transcended 
human  limitations,  it  was  given  to  Him  by  the  Father 
for  His  Messianic  work,  as  we  have  already  shown. 

It  is  a  question  whether  Jesus  thought  His  own 
parousia  much  nearer  than  it  really  was.  Weiss 
thinks  He   regarded    it  as  near,  and  the   belief  of  the 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  33 1 

apostolic  age  seems  to  support  this  view.  Edersheim 
thinks  Jesus  was  not  mistaken,  but  admits  that  the 
evangelists  seem  to  have  been  mistaken,  and  to  have 
associated  the  parousia  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Some  points  bearing  on  this  question  will  be 
presented  later. 

(4b)  General  Teaching  of  the  Discourse.  Accord- 
ing to  Matthew,  the  disciples  ask  for  a  sign  of  Christ's 
coming,  and  also  for  a  sign  of  the  destruction  of  the 
temple  (Matt.  xxiv.  3).  The  discourse  of  Jesus  con- 
cerns these  two  great  events.  The  difficulty  is  to  ascer- 
tain what  portions  concern  each  event,  and  what 
relation  of  time  the  two  events  sustained  to  each  other 
in  the  mind  of  Jesus. 

There  are  certain  points  in  the  narrative  which 
seem  to  indicate  that  Jesus  thought  of  the  parousia  as 
indefinitely  remote.  So  the  statement  that  the  Gospel 
of  the  kingdom  must  be  preached  in  the  whole  world, 
for  a  witness  to  all  the  nations,  before  the  end  should 
come  (Matt.  xxiv.  14;  Mark  xiii.  10).  It  may  be 
granted  that  neither  Jesus  nor  anyone  of  that  age  had 
a  just  conception  of  the  magnitude  of  the  earth,  but  we 
must  suppose  that  every  intelligent  Jew  who  had 
reached  mature  years  had  some  apprehension  of  the 
size  of  the  Roman  empire.  He  knew  from  his  Bible 
something  about  Egypt  and  the   eastern  empires;   he 


332  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

knew,  through  Greeks  and  Romans,  something  about 
the  western  world,  as  far  as  the  Roman  arms  had  car- 
ried their  conquests.  Therefore,  when  Jesus  spoke  of 
a  Gospel  work  in  all  the  inhabited  earth,  His  thought 
must  have  taken  in  a  territory  in  comparison  with 
which  Palestine  was  exceedingly  small.  And  we  know 
how  He  thought  of  the  advance  of  His  cause.  It  was 
to  be  like  the  working  of  leaven.  His  disciples  were 
to  meet  with  varied  and  great  opposition.  Thus  the 
witnessing  to  the  nations  was  to  be  a  slow  and  pro- 
tracted work.  Some  of  His  disciples  would  live  to  see 
the  kingdom  come  with  great  power,  as  it  did  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  and  in  the  immediately  subsequent 
years,  but  this  was  only  the  beginning  of  the  wide 
work.  Hence  if  Jesus  really  said  that  the  Gospel 
should  be  preached  to  all  the  nations  before  the  end, 
and  if  He  possessed  even  an  average  knowledge  in 
regard  to  the  extent  of  the  world,  He  cannot  have 
thought  that  the  work  would  be  accomplished  within 
that  generation.  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  He 
attempted  to  compute  how  many  years  or  generations 
it  would  require.  He  told  His  disciples  that  the 
Father  had  set  times  and  seasons  within  His  own 
authority  (Acts  i.  7). 

Again,  the  reference  to  the  times  of  the   Gentiles, 
during  which  Jerusalem  would  be  trodden  down,  puts 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  333 

an  indefinite  period  between  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  end  (Luke  xxi.  24).  Weiss  thinks  that 
this  statement  of  Luke  is  a  late  addition  to  the  dis- 
course, caused  by  the  observation  and  reflection  of 
the  apostolic  age;  but,  even  in  that  case,  we  must 
suppose  that  the  apostolic  age  thought  that  this  view 
faithfully  represented  the  mind  of  Jesus.  It  must 
have  seemed  to  them  to  be  in  accord  with  what  had 
been  handed  down  as  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and, 
therefore,  it  has  a  value  still  for  the  solution  of  the 
question. 

Finally,  this  discourse  of  Jesus  on  the  last  things 
seems  to  imply  a  long  period  when  it  speaks  of  indefi 
nite  wars  between  nation  and  nation,  when  it  speaks 
of  many  false  prophets,  and  when  it  speaks  of  the  love 
of  the  many  waxing  cold,  and  then  adds  that  all  these 
things  are  only  the  beginning oi  the  travail  pains  which 
precede  the  end  (Mark  xiii.  5-8;  Matt.  xxiv.  4-8;  Luke 
xxi.  8-1 1 ).  Thus  there  seem  to  be  unmistakable  indi- 
cations in  the  Olivet  discourse  that  Jesus  thought  of 
His  paroiisia  as  being  indefinitely  rem.oved  from  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem, 

Yet  this  is  not  a  complete  statement  of  the  subject. 
By  the  side  of  this  indefinite  postponement  we  have 
passages  which  seem  to  represent  the  parousia  as 
quite     near.      Thus     Jesus     says    to    His    disciples, 


334  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

• 

''Watch,  for  ye  know  not  what  hour  your  Lord 
Cometh"  (Matt.  xxiv.  42);  and,  "In  an  hour  that  ye 
think  not  the  Son  of  man  cometh"  (Matt.  xxiv.  44). 
Again,  He  says,  "Watch  ye  at  every  season,  making 
suppHcation,  that  ye  may  prevail  to  escape  all  these 
things,  and  to  stand  before  the  Son  of  man"  (Luke 
xxi.  36).  Still  more  explicit  are  the  words  of  Jesus 
in  Matt.  x.  23:  "Ye  shall  not  have  gone  through  the 
cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come." 

From  this  survey  we  see  that  the  paroiisia  is  rep- 
resented both  as  near  and  as  remote.  It  is  to  take 
place  before  the  disciples  shall  have  finished  the 
evangelization  of  Palestine,  and  again  it  is  postponed 
to  the  time  after  the  evangelization  of  all  the  nations. 
It  is  impossible  to  hold  that  both  these  classes  of 
passages  refer  to  one  definite  historical  event.  If 
both  classes  of  passages  are  equally  historical,  then 
we  must  suppose  either  that  the  thought  of  Jesus  was 
inconstant,  or  that  He  looked  upon  His  paroiisia  as 
a  process,  and  that  He  gave  His  disciples  two  scenes 
out  of  that  one  long  process,  namely  its  beginning  and 
its  culmination.  Jesus  knew  that  the  first  of  these 
scenes  would  fall  within  the  present  generation,  but 
as  for  the  time  of  the  second,  that  was  known  to  the 
Father  only.^     The   details   of   this   view  can  not  be 

I   Compare  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  i.  351. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  335 

given  in  this  place,  but  perhaps  enough  has  been  said 
to  show  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Jesus 
was  mistaken  in  regard  to  the  time  of  His  paroiisia, 
or  that  His  disciples  were  ivJiolly  mistaken.  This  is 
as  far  as  we  need  to  carry  the  subject  in  this  biograph- 
ical study. 

(e)  Thursday  of  the  Last  Week,  (i)  The  Chrono- 
logical Problem.  John  and  the  Synoptists  seem  to  be  at 
variance  regarding  the  date  of  the  Last  Supper.  The 
first  three  Gospels  agree  that  it  occurred  on  the  15th 
of  Nisan,  the  time  fixed  by  the  law  for  the  feast  of  the 
Passover  (Ex.  xii.  6).  The  legal  expression  is  "the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  month  at  even,"  but  at  sunset 
of  the  14th,  according  to  Jewish  reckoning,  the  15th 
day  began.  Hence  the  first  three  Gospels  teach  that 
the  Last  Supper,  which  they  put  on  the  same  even- 
ing with  the  Passover,  was  on  the  evening  of  Thurs- 
day, and  the  crucifixion  on  Friday,  but  both  on  the 
I  5th  of  the  month. 

John's  statement  seems  to  be  in  conflict  with  this. 
In  xiii.  I  he  places  the  Supper  before  the  Passover. 
In  xiii.  27-29  there  is  a  reference  to  the  purchase  of 
things  which  were  needful  for  the  feast.  This  is  said 
to  indicate  plainly  that  the  Supper  was  not  celebrated 
on  the  same  night  with  the  Passover.  Again,  in  xviii. 
28,  after  Jesus   had  been  arrested,  it  is   said  that  the 


336         THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

Jews  would  not  go  into  the  palace  of  Pilate  lest  they 
should  be  defiled  so  that  they  could  not  eat  the  Pass- 
over. This  is  said  to  show  that  Jesus  was  crucified 
on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and  hence  that  the  Last  Supper 
was  one  day  earlier  than  the  legal  Passover.  Finally, 
in  xix.  14  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  is  called  the  Prep- 
aratiouxof  the  Passover.  In  addition  to  these  difficul- 
ties from  John,  much  stress  is  laid  on  the  fact  that 
the  Synoptists  speak  of  various  things  being  done  on 
the  day  of  the  crucifixion  which  would  not  be  done 
on  the  sacred  day  of  the  Passover.  Weiss^  specifies 
three  points:  Joseph  buys  linen  on  the  day  of  the  cru- 
cifixion (Mark  xv.  46);  the  women  prepare  ointment 
(Luke  xxiii.  56);  and  Simon  comes  from  the  field,  as 
though  from  work  (Mark  xv.  21).  In  view  of  all 
these  difficulties  some  writers  hold  that  there  is  an 
irreconcilable  contradiction  between  John  and  the 
Synoptists  {e.  g. ,  Neander,  Hase,  Weiss,  Beyschlag 
and  Hort.)  Against  this  conclusion,  however,  there 
is,  first  of  all,  some  presumptive  evidence.  Thus 
there  is  a  presumption  that  Matthew  and  Peter  (the  lat- 
ter being  Mark's  chief  source)  had  not  forgotten  the  day 
on  which  Jesus  ate  the  Last  Supper  with  His  disciples. 
The  events  of  the  last  twenty-four  hours  of  Christ's 
life    must  have  remained  in  especially  vivid  remem- 

I  Weiss,  Das  Leben  Jcsii,  ii.  494. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  337 

brance  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples.  Second,  there  is 
a  presumption  that  if  John  had  known  that  the  Synop- 
tists  were  mistaken  in  putting:  the  crucifixion  on  the 
first  feast  day,  and  if  he  had  intended  to  correct  this 
mistake,  he  would  have  done  so  in  an  intelligible  way. 
Third,  there  is  a  presumption  that  Jesus,  who  was 
made  under  the  law,  and  who  habitually  kept  the  law, 
would  not  celebrate  the  Passover  a  day  before  the 
legal  time. 

Let  us  look  now  at  the  passages  which  are 
said  to  prove  a  conflict  between  John  and  the  earlier 
Gospels.  According  to  John  xiii.  i,  the  supper  at 
which  Jesus  announced  the  treachery  of  one  of  His 
disciples,  and  hence  the  supper  which  the  Synoptists 
put  on  the  same  evening  with  the  Passover,  is  said  to 
have  come  before  the  Passover.  But  this  is  an  .indefi- 
nite statement,  and  one  cannot  say  that  it  means  a  day 
before  the  Passover.  It  is  simply  a  word  of  relation, 
and  locates  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet,  and  per- 
haps some  other  events  of  the  subsequent  verses, 
before  the  Passover.  But  they  are  not  thus  banished 
from  that  evening  altogether.  Again  it  is  said  that 
John  xiii.  27-29  implies  that  the  Passover  was  not 
until  the  following  day,  for  when  Judas  went  out 
some   of   the   disciples    thought   he   had   gone  to  buy 

things   for  the   feast.      But   are  we  quite  sure  that  he: 
22 


338  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

could  not  have  been  supposed  to  be  going  after  things 
for  their  use  on  that  very  evening?  Have  we  such 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  Passover  customs  of  that 
time,  that  we  are  warranted  in  denying  this  possibility? 
Moreover,  the  word  of  Jesus  to  Judas,  "  What  thou 
doest,  do  quickly,''  would  not  have  suggested  to  them 
that  their  Master  had  in  mind  certain  purchases  which 
would  be  needed  on  the  following  evening.  Another 
objection  is  found  in  John  xviii.  28.  Here  it  is  said 
that  the  Jews  entered  not  into  the  palace  of  Pilate  on 
the  morning  of  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  •  lest  they 
should  be  defiled  so  that  they  could  not  eat  the 
Passover.  If  the  word  Passover  means  paschal  lamb, 
then  John  puts  the  crucifixion  the  day  before  the 
feast,  and  is  at  variance  with  the  Synoptists.  But 
must  it  mean  that?  Edersheim  seeks  to  show  that  it 
was  used  to  denote  all  the  Passover  sacrifices,  and 
especially  the  festive  offering  that  was  brought  on  the 
first  feast  day.^  And  is  not  this  view  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that  the  ceremonial  defilement  caused  by  enter, 
ing  the  palace  of  Pilate  would  have  continued  only 
till  evening,  and  so  would  not  have  prevented  their 
eating  the  Passover  lamb?  There  remains  the  pas- 
sage,   John    xix.    14.      The  day  on  which  Jesus  was 

I  Life    and    Times  of    fesus    the    Messiah,  ii.    568.     Comp. 
Friedlieb,  Archaeologie  der  Leidensgeschichte,   p.  102. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  339 

crucified  is  called  the  Preparation  of  tlic  Passover. 
But  the  term  Preparation,  as  we  learn  from  Mark 
XV.  42,  was  a  designation  of  the  sixth  day  of  the  week, 
and  consequently  Preparation  of  the  Passover  means 
Preparation  of  the  Passover  week,  that  is,  the  day 
before  the  Sabbath  in  the  week  of  the  Passover. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  various  forms  of  work  or 
activity  which  the  Synoptists  put  on  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion,  we  cannot  affirm  that  they  may  not  all 
have  occurred  on  the  feast  day.  Traveling  was 
allowed  within  certain  limits,  and  hence  the  reference 
to  Simon  causes  no  difficulty.  The  text  does  not  say 
that  he  was  coming  from  zvork,  but  only  that  he  was 
coming  from  the  eountry.  Joseph  bought  a  linen 
cloth  to  wrap  the  body  of  Jesus  in,  and  the  women, 
according  to  Luke,  prepared  ointment,  but  no  law 
has  been  shown  to  have  existed  among  the  Jews 
which  prohibited  such  pious  rites  being  performed  on 
the  feast  day. 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations  it  seems  to  me 
that  there  is  no  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
a  harmonious  interpretation  of  both  John  and  the 
Synoptists. 

(2)  Preparation  for  the  Passover.  Jesus  spent 
Thursday  at  least  outside  the  city,  probably  in  Beth- 
any (Mark  xiv.   12).      Sometime  during  this  day   His 


340        THE  STUDENT  S  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

disciples  asked  where  He  would  keep  the  Passover, 
that  they  might  make  the  needful  preparations  (Mark 
xiv.  12;  Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Luke  xxii.  9).  They  did  not 
know  that  He  had  already  arranged  with  some  friend 
for  a  room.  Yet  it  appears  that  He  had  done  so, 
partly  perhaps  that  there  might  be  no  confusion  when 
the  time  should  come  for  the  feast,  and  partly  that 
Judas  might  not  find  out  where  they  were  to  keep  the 
Passover,  and  so  be  able  to  arrest  Him  before  He  had 
kept  the  feast  with  His  disciples,  and  had  said  His 
parting  words  to  them. 

This  pre-arrangement  by  Jesus  is  manifest  in  the 
directions  given  to  Peter  and  John  who  were  sent  to 
purchase  the  lamb  and  other  necessary  articles  (Luke 
xxii.  8).  He  tells  them  that  they  will  meet  a  man 
with  a  pitcher  of  water,  and  that  he  will  lead  them  to 
a  house  in  which  a  guest  chamber  is  made  ready  for 
Him  and  His  disciples  (Mark  xiv.  13-15;  Matt,  xxvi, 
18;  Luke  xxii.  10-12).  They  are  simply  to  say  to  the 
householder,  "The  Teacher  saith.  Where  is  my  guest 
chamber.^'-'  It  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  house- 
holder knows  who  tJic  teacher  is,  and  the  expression 
' '  my  guest  chamber"  also  points  to  a  previous  arrange- 
ment for  a  room.  In  line  with  this  is  also  the  state- 
ment of  Jesus  that  the  disciples  would  find  the  room 
streivn   and   ready.      The  word   strewn  refers    to  the 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.        ^  34 1 

reclining  couches,    and  that   together  with   the  word 
ready  seems  to  imply  that  the  room  was  prepared  for 
thirteen  people. 
1  The  peculiar  form  of  the  direction  given  to  the  dis- 

ciples is  due  to  the  wish  of  Jesus  that  Judas  should  not 
know  of  the  place. 

(3)  Washing  the  Disciples  Feet.  Jesus  and  the 
twelve  came  into  the  city  toward  evening  and  went  to 
the  place  which  had  been  prepared  for  them  (Mark 
xiv.  17;  Matt.  xxvi.  20;  Luke  xxii.  14).  In  that  large 
upper  room  Jesus  spent  His  last  quiet  hours  with  the 
disciples.  It  fuay  have  been  in  the  home  of  Mary,  the 
mother  of  Mark.  If  the  young  man  who  narrowly 
escaped  arrest  with  Jesus  in  Gethsemane  was  Mark 
himself  (Mark  xiv.  51-52),  which  seems  very  probable, 
then  it  is  further  probable  that  he  came  from  the 
house  where  Jesus  had  spent  the  evening,  and  whither 
the  soldiers  doubtless  went  at  first  in  the  hope  of  find- 
ing Jesus.  He  would  naturally  be  awakened  by  the 
coming  of  the  soldiers,  and  when  the  soldiers  hastily 
departed,  not  having  found  Jesus,  he  quickly  followed 
them  without  stopping  to  dress,  but  simply  throwing  a 
cloth  around  bim.  If  moreover  the  Passover  was 
celebrated  in  the  house  of  this  Mary,  then  it  is  not 
improbable  that  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
Pentecost  was  in  the  same  room  (Acts  i.   13),    which 


342        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

may  well  have  seemed  to  the  disciples  a  most  holy 
place  and  a  place  in  which  to  wait  for  the  fulfilment 
of  Christ's  promise.  We  know  also  that  it  was  in  the 
house  of  Mary  that  many  gathered  to  pray  for  the 
release  of  Peter  from  prison,  and  this  may  well  have 
been  in  the  same  upper  room  (Acts  xii.   12). 

The  first  event  to  be  considered  which  certainly 
took  place  in  this  upper  room  was  the  washing  of  the 
disciples'  feet  (John  xiii.  1-20).  It  is  manifest  that 
this  act  of  Jesus  was  symbolical,  and  not  in  the  inter- 
est of  cleanliness  or  to  fulfil  a  Pharisaic  ordinance,  for 
He  did  not  undertake  it  until  they  had  reclined  and 
begun  their  supper.  The  occasion  of  it  is  not  given, 
for  the  strife  as  to  who  was  greatest,  which  Luke  re- 
cords in  connection  with  the  supper  (Luke  xxii.  24-26), 
is  probably  the  same  strife  which  we  know  took  place 
in  Capernaum  before  the  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry 
(Mark  ix.  33).  The  occasion  may  have  been  some 
feeling  of  jealousy  caused  by  the  positions  occupied 
at  the  table,  for  John  reclined  on  the  Lord's  bosom 
(John  xiii.  25),  and  Judas  seems  to  have  been  next  to 
Jesus  on  the  other  side  (John  xiii.  26-29;  Mark  xiv. 
20;  Matt.  xxvi.  23).  If  such  feelings  arose,  Jesus 
might  easily  notice  them,  and  this  may  have  led  to 
the  symbolic  act. 

As  the  service  itself  was  one  usually  performed  by 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  343 

slaves,  Jesus  attired  Himself  as  a  slave,  thus  making 
the  lesson  of  the  act  the  more  plain  and  impressive. 
This  lesson  was  that  of  service.  The  washing  of  the 
disciples'  feet  was  saying  in  the  language  of  action 
that  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto 
but  to  minister,  and  that  the  law  of  His  kingdom  was 
the  law  of  helpfulness  (Mark  x.  43-45)-  I"  the  mind 
of  John,  this  act  was  a  culminating  illustration  of  the 
love  of  Jesus  (John  xiii.  i),  and  it  is  doubtless  true 
that  Jesus  did  not  think  of  the  law  of  service  as  capa- 
ble of  fulfilment  except  in  love  (John  xiii.  34-35; 
xiv.  23). 

It  was  thoroughly  characteristic  of  Peter  that  he  at 
first  refused  to  let  Jesus  wash  his  feet,  feeling  his 
unworthiness  of  such  a  service,  and  then  when  Jesus 
made  Peter's  fellowship  with  Him  depend  upon  his 
acceptance  of  the  service  which  was  offered,  he  craved 
that  his  hands  and  his  head  also  might  be  washed. 
With  his  whole  soul  he  desired  to  have  a  part  with 
Christ.  Jesus  in  answering  Peter's  request  disclosed, 
as  Weiss^  says,  the  deepest  meaning  of  the  act.  As 
one  who  is  bathed  needs  only  the  washing  of  the  feet, 
when  they  have  become  dusty  from  the  way,  so  the 
disciples  have  been  bathed  in  their  fellowship  with 
Jesus,  and  need  only  a  washing  from  the  pride  which 

I  Das  Lebcn  Jesu,  ii.  507. 


344        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

would  keep  them  from  the  performance  of  the  hum- 
blest service  for  each  other.  Thus  there  was  a 
thought  of  comfort  associated  with  the  rebuke  which 
was  involved  in  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  by 
Jesus.  The  disciples  are  clean  through  the  word 
which  Jesus  has  spoken  to  them  (John  xv.  3),  all 
but  one. 

(4)  TJic  Departure  of  Judas.  According  to  Luke, 
Judas  remained  at  the  table  through  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  (Luke  xxii.  21),  but  according  to 
John,  Judas  went  out  after  he  had  received  a  sop  from 
Jesus,  which  was  given  him  while  they  were  reclining, 
and  also  before  the  closing  words  of  comfort  which 
Jesus  spoke  to  His  disciples  (John  xiii.  26).  This 
passage  in  John  does  not  make  it  absolutely  certain 
that  Judas  went  out  before  the  institution  of  the  Sup- 
per, but  it  strongly  favors  that  view.^  The  represen- 
tation of  John  is  intrinsically  probable.  Jesus  would 
naturally  desire  that  Judas,  whose  heart  was  now 
hopelessly  alienated  from  Him,  should  not  by  his 
presence  break  the  sympathetic  circle  to  which  He 
was  about  to  give  His  last  tender  words  of  farewell 
and  of  hope. 

The  occasion  of  the  departure  of  Judas  was  his  dis- 

I   Adopted  by  Weiss,  Edersheim,  etc.      For  fuller   reference   to 
this  point,  see  Introduction,  pp.  55-56. 


;  THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  345 

covery  that  Jesus  knew  his  treachery,  and  the  Lord's 
summons  to  do  quickly  what  he  purposed  (John  xiii. 
26-27).  The  purpose  to  betray  Jesus  had  been  formed 
at  least  two  days  before;  the  action  and  word  of  Jesus 
only  sent  him  forth  on  his  dark  mission  a  little  earlier 
than  he  might  otherwise  have  gone.  Judas  may  well 
have  suspected  that  Jesus  was  doubtful  of  his  loyalty 
before  this  hour,  but  now  the  Lord  makes  it  plain 
that  He  knows  his  plot  and  tells  him  to  carry  it  out  at 
once.  The  chief  object  which  Jesus  had  in  mind  when 
He  told  His  disciples  that  one  of  them  should  betray 
Him,  may  have  been  to  bring  about  the  departure  of 
Judas,  so  that  in  an  atmosphere  of  mutual  love  He 
might  speak  His  closing  words  (Mark  xiv.  i8.  Matt, 
xxvi.  21;   Luke  xxii.  21). 

(5)  TJic  Institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  (5a) 
The  Data.  There  are  four  accounts  of  the  institution 
of  the  Supper,  the  earliest  being  by  Paul  (I  Cor.  xi. 
23-26),  the  other  three  being  by  the  Synoptists  (Mark 
xiv.  22-25;  Matt.  xxvi.  26-29;  Luke  xxii.  15-20). 
John  says  nothing  of  the  Supper,  but  the  fundamental 
truth  which  the  Supper  teaches  is  found  oftener  in 
John's  Gospel  than  in  either  of  the  others  [e.  g. 
John  vi.). 

The  four  accounts  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper 
fall  into  two  groups,  those  of  Luke  and  Paul  forming 


346  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

one,  and  those  of  Mark  and  Matthew  the  other.  The 
differences  between  the  two  groups  are  noteworthy, 
but  not  essential.  In  Paul  and  Luke  the  nioiiorial 
character  of  the  Supper  is  expressly  stated,  while  in 
Mark  and  Matthew  it  does  not  appear.  Yet  this 
thought  is  surely  involved  in  the  observance  itself. 
The  broken  bread  and  the  wine  symbolizing  the  body 
and  the  blood  of  Jesus,  as  all  four  accounts  teach, 
inevitably  turn  the  thought  to  Him,  and  the  Supper 
must  of  necessity  be  a  memorial.  Mark  and  Matthew 
say  that  the  blood  is  shed  for  many,  Matthew  adding 
to  this  the  words  unto  remission  of  sins.  Both  these 
thoughts  are  wanting  in  the  narratives  of  Paul  and 
Luke.  In  Paul  and  Luke  the  Lord  is  represented  as 
saying  to  His  disciples  that  His  body  is  for  t/icm.  In 
Mark  and  Matthew  the  horizon  is  broadened,  and 
though  it  is  not  said  for  whom  the  body  is  destined,  it 
is  said  that  the  blood  is  shed  for  many.  This  state- 
ment, however,  concerns  the  meaning  of  Christ's 
death,  and  not  particularly  the  meaning  of  the  Supper. 
(5b)  The  Significance.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  bio- 
graphically  interesting  because,  first,  it  is  the  clearest 
expression  in  the  Synoptists  of  the  importance  claimed 
by  Jesus  for  His  own  person.  The  bread  was  a  sym- 
bol of  His  body,  and  the  wine  a  symbol  of  His  blood. 
The  broken  bread  pointed  not   only  to   His  body,  but 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  347 

also  to  His  body  given  for  you  (Luke  xxii.  19),  and 
the  wine  symbolized  blood  that  was  shed  for  Diany 
(Mark  xiv.  24),  and  unto  reuiission  of  sins  (Matt, 
xxvi.  28).  Thus  the  thought  of  Him  in  His  self-devo- 
tion for  the  good  of  men  was  to  be  central  in  the  ob- 
servance. Second,  because  Jesus  seems  to  have  regarded 
the  supper  as  in  some  sense  parallel  with  the  old 
Passover.  This  is  involved  in  the  institution  of  the 
Supper  immediately  after  the  observance  of  the  Pass- 
over. Jesus  puts  it  side  by  side  with  the  most  solemn 
rite  of  the  Old  Covenant.  He  could  hardly  have  done 
this  had  He  not  considered  it  as  of  equal  significance. 
And  we  may  suppose  that  He  regarded  its  fundamental 
idea  as  similar  to  that  of  the  Passover.  That  was  the 
memorial  of  a  great  deliverance;  so  also  was  the  Sup- 
per. In  one  case  the  deliverance  was  from  outward 
bondage  and  by  outward  means;  in  the  other  it  was 
from  spiritual  bondage  and  by  spiritual  means.  For 
the  Supper  was  a  memorial  of  Jesus  (Luke  xxii.  19), 
but  the  one  great  work  of  Jesus  was  a  work  of  deliv- 
erance from  sin.  So  John  in  the  Apocalypse  couples 
Jesus  with  Moses,  and  calls  the  song  of  redemption  by 
their  joint  names,  because  the  work  of  both  was  alike 
a  work  of  deliverance  (Rev.  xv.  3).  The  Lord's  Sup- 
per, however,  differed  from  the  Passover  in  that  while 
it  was  a  feast  of  deliverance,  it  gave  prominence  to 


348  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

the  Deliverer.  Deliverance  is  here  inseparably  asso- 
ciated with  Jesus.  The  Passover  gave  no  such  prom- 
inence to  the  person  of  the  deliverer.  It  was,  rather, 
a  memorial  of  the  deliverance  itself. 

We  may  well  believe  that  Jesus,  in»  instituting  the 
Supper  by  the  side  of  the  Passover,  regarded  it  as  the 
fulfilment  of  the  Passover,  the  symbolic  realization  of 
the  old  type.  So  it  was  His  final  declaration  of  the 
truth  that  He  came  to  fulfil  the  law.  If  He  regarded 
the  Supper  in  this  way,  then  He  must  have  meant  that 
for  His  disciples  it  should  supersede  the  old  rite.  He 
did  not  say  this,  but  left  it  to  be  taught  by  the  Spirit. 
It  would  become  plain  to  the  disciples  in  coming  days 
that  they  could  not  go  back  from  the  fulfilment  and 
the  Divine  Fulfiller  to  the  imperfect  prefigurements 
and  forerunners  of  the  truth. 

Third,  the  Supper  is  biographically  interesting  be- 
cause it  associates  brotherly  felloivship  with  the  disci- 
ples' remembrance  of  the  Lord.  It  is,  in  parable,  the 
truth  expressed  in  John:  '*  By  this  shall  all  men  know 
that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  3^e  have  love  one  toward 
another"  (John  xiii.  35).  By  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
disciples  were  to  make  known  the  death  of  Jesus  (I  Cor. 
xi.  26),  and  they  could  not  observe  that  Supper  except 
as  they  came  together  in  brotherly  fellowship.  The 
religious  memorial   of  Him   was   to  be  a  social  feast, 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  349 

where  the  one  loaf  was  to  be  divided  among  all,  and 
the  wine  cup  passed  from  one  to  another.  Thus  it 
involved  the  great  principle  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus,  the 
love  of  His  disciples  for  each  other,  as  it  also  involves 
the  love  of  God,  inasmuch  as  it  presents  Jesus  in  the 
act  of  giving  Himself  for  men. 

FourtJi,  the  Supper  is  biographically  interesting 
because  it  contains  the  hope  of  Jesus  for  a  heavenly 
reunion  with  His  disciples.  All  the  Synoptists 
report  that  Jesus,  before  leaving  the  table,  spoke 
of  drinking  wine  with  His  disciples  in  the  kingdom 
of  His  Father.  If  this  word  suggests  the  end  of 
an  earthly  fellowship,  it  points,  also,  to  a  future 
fellowship.  If  the  Supper  looks  backward,  it  also  looks 
forward.  Herein  it  transcends  the  Passover,  which 
was  wholly  concerned  with  a  great  deliverance  in  the 
past. 

(6)  TJie  Closing  Words  of  Jesus.  The  Synop- 
tists bridge  the  interval  between  the  institution  of  the 
Supper  and  Gethsemane  with  a  few  words  in  which 
Jesus  announces  that  His  disciples  will  leave  Him, 
that  later  He  will  go  before  them  into  Galilee,  and 
with  the  short  dialogue  between  Jesus  and  Peter 
(Mark  xiv.  26-31;  Matt.  xxvi.  30-35;  Lukexxii.  31-34). 
In  this  interval  John  puts  a  long  farewell  address  of 
Jesus,  and  a  prayer  by  Him   (John  xiii.   31 — xvi.  33; 


350        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

xvii).  The  thoughts  with  which  we  have  to  do  here 
group  themselves  around  two  points:  first,  the  rela- 
tion of  Jesus  to  the  Father;  and  second,  the  relation  of 
Jesus  to  His  disciples.  First,  the  so-called  high- 
priestly  prayer  of  Jesus,  though  it  may  not  give  His 
very  words,  is  doubtless  historical  in  this  respect  that 
it  represents  Him  as  conscious  to  the  last,  of  depend- 
ence upon  the  Father.  He  prayed.  He  prayed  for 
Himself  (John  xvii.  i,  5);  He  prayed  for  His  disciples 
who  were  with  Him  (John  xvii.  9-19);  He  prayed  for 
thos^  who  should  believe  on  Him  in  coming  time 
(John  xvii.  20-21).  He  looked  to  the  Father  for  His 
own  glorification,  and  for  the  preservation,  sanctifica- 
tion,  union,  success,  and  glory  of  His  disciples. 

At  the  same  time  by  the  side  of  this  true  sense  of 
dependence,  there  are  here,  as  in  the  eighth  chapter  of 
John,  intimations  of  a  conviction  that  He  had  had  a 
personal  existence  with  the  Father  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  (John  xvii.   5,  24). 

Again,  these  closing  words  show  that  Jesus  had 
what  no  other  man  ever  had,  the  consciousness  of 
having  perfectly  accomplished  the  work  which  the 
Father  had  given  Him  to  do  (John  xvii.  4);  and  this 
work  which  He  had  perfectly  accomplished  was  the 
most  sublime  and  most  difficult  of  which  we  can  con- 
ceive.      It    was    nothing    less    than    manifesting    the 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  33 1 

character  of  God  to  men  (John  xvii.  6),  and  giving  to 
His  disciples  a  new  and  eternal  life  (John  xvii.  2). 

Second,  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples 
appears  in  a  clear  light  in  these  farewell  moments.  The 
tenderness  and  generosity  of  His  love  for  them  are 
manifest  again  and  again.  He  wishes  them  to  share 
not  only  in  His  work,  but  to  share  equally  with  Him 
in  the  Father's  love,  and  to  share  in  His  own  glory 
(John  xiv.  21,  23,  27;  XV.  9;  xvii.  23,  24,  26).  He 
sees  an  earthly  glorification  of  Himself  in  His  dis- 
ciples (John  xvii.  10).  They  are  not  His  servants  but 
His /;7>;/^/.s-  (John  xv.  15).  He  has  taken  them  into 
His  confidence  and  told  them  all  that  He  knows  of 
the  Father.  On  them- rests  the  same  honor  that  rests 
on  Him,  for  He  declares  that  they  are  sent  into  the 
world  even  as  He  had  been  sent  (John  xvii.  18). 
They  are  capable  of  becoming  one,  even  as  He  and 
the  Father  are  one  (John  xvii.  20-23).  They  are 
loved  of  the  Father,  even  as  He  Himself  is  (John  xvii. 
23),  and  Christ's  future  aim  is  that  the  Father's  love 
may  be  in  them  (John  xvii.  26).  He  will  have  them 
with  Him  hereafter  (John  xiv.  3),  and  have  them 
behold  His  glory  (John  xvii.  24).  He  refers  to  the 
Father's  house^  and  says  that  if  there  were  not  many 
mansions  there  He  would  have  told  thejii  (John  xiv.  2). 
Thus  all  through  these  closing  words  of  Jesus  runs  a 


352         THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

love  for  His  disciples  that  is  full  of  divine  tenderness 
and  magnanimity. 

But  here  also  more  clearly  than  elsewhere  appears 
the  thought  of  the  union  of  Jesus  with  His  disciples. 
He  is  one  with  them  in  their  common  knowledge  of  the 
Father  (John  xvii.  1 1,  22),  a  knowledge  which  He  has 
imparted  to  them;  and  one  with  them  in  the  love  of 
the  Father  (John  xv.  3;  xvii.  26),  which  He  has 
revealed  to  them.  In  consequence  of  this  union,  His 
disciples  will  bear  fruit  (John  xv.  3),  will  be  united 
with  each  other  (John  xvii.  11,  20),  and  will  be  able 
to  pray  in  the  name  of  Jesus  (John  xv.  7;  xiv.  13-14; 
XV.   16;  xvi.  23,  24,  26). 

In  connection  with  the  thought  of  Christ's  union 
with  His  disciples,  which  was  so  prominent  in  the 
words  of  the  last  evening,  we  have  to  notice  what  He 
says  of  His  Successor,  the  Spii-it,  the  Spirit  of  triitJi, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Parnelete  (John  xiv.  16-17,  26; 
XV.  26;  xvi.  7-IT,  13-15).  All  that  He  said  of  Him, 
He  said  in  the  closing  hours.  His  own  vital  relation  to 
His  disciples  was  to  be  continued  through  the  agency 
of  this  Successor.  When  the  Spirit  comes  to  the  disci- 
ples and  abides  in  them,  it  is  as  though  Jesus  Himself 
abode  in  them.  The  Spirit  is  His  alter  ego.  Thus 
when  looking  forward  to  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  He 
says,   *'/ will  come  to  you  "  (John  xiv.   18),  and  when 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  353 

manifestly  thinking  of  the  fellowship  of  the  Spirit, 
He  says,  *' He  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my 
Father,  and  /  will  love  him  and  will  manifest  myself  io 
him"  (John  xiv.  21).  The  Spirit  will  continue  to  do 
for  the  disciples  what  Jesus  has  done.  He  will  teach 
them,  and  in  this  will  sustain  the  same  relation  to 
Christ  that  Christ  in  His  teaching  has  sustained  to  the 
Father  (John  xiv.  26;  xvi.  13-14;  xvii.  4).  He  does 
not  speak  of  Himself,  but  speaks  what  He  hears.  His 
work  is  most  comprehensively  described  when  He  is 
spoken  of  by  the  side  of  Jesus  as  another  Paraclete 
(John  xiv.  16).  That  is,  Jesus  thought  the  mission  of 
the  Spirit  essentially  the  same  as  His  own.  He  had 
been  a  helper,  a  paraclete,  and  now  the  Spirit  will  take 
His  place  with  them,  and  be  their  helper  as  variously  as 
Jesus  Himself  had  ever  been,  though  not  necessarily  in 
the  same  ways,  l^his  language  of  course  implies  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit,  and  also  implies  that  He  has 
essentially  the  same  character  as  Jesus — the  same  love 
for  the  disciples,  the  same  purpose,  the  same  under- 
standing of  their  needs,  and  the  same  ability  to  help 
them. 

These  words  of  Jesus  regarding  a  spiritual  successor^ 
sent  from  the  Father  but  sent  through  rfim  as  the 
channel    (John    xiv.     16;    xv.    26),    plainly   transcend 

human  knowledge.    His  conviction  that  His  Successor 
23 


354        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

would  carry  on  His  work  even  better  than  He  could 
do  if  present  in  the  flesh  (John  xvi.  7),  accounts  for 
the  serenity  of  His  mind  and  heart  in  view  of  His  vio- 
lent separation  from  His  disciples,  and  in  view  of  the 
terrible  sorrow  and  disappointment  which  would  for 
a  time  be  theirs. 

(7)  In  Gethse7nane.  (7a)  The  Place.  Gethsem- 
ane  was  an  enclosed  garden  across  the  Kedron  brook, 
on  the  slope  of  Olivet  (John  xviii.  1-3).  Jesus  had 
often  been  there  with  His  disciples,  perhaps  for  quiet 
and  refreshment.  Therefore,  Judas  knew  of  the  resort, 
and,  after  going  to  the  house  where  he  had  left  Jesus 
and  failing  to  find  Him  there,  he  bethought  him  of  this 
place.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  knew  beforehand 
that  Jesus  intended  to  go  to  Gethsemane,  or  indeed 
that  Jesus  Himself  had  planned  it  previously. 

The  reason  why  Jesus  withdrew  to  Gethsemane 
may  have  been  two-fold.  First,  He  did  not  wish  to 
involve  His  friends  in  trouble,  in  whose  house  He  had 
spent  the  evening;  and,  second.  He  wished  a  secluded 
spot  for  prayer. 

(7b)  The  Prayer.  Jesus  took  Peter,  James  and 
John  with  Him  to  a  distance  from  the  others,  for  the 
sake  of  having  human  sympathy.  This  appears  from 
the  narrative.  He  wished  them  to  watch  with  Him 
(Mark  xiv.  37;  Matt.  xxvi.  40).    At  last,  when  He  had 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  355 

finished  His  struggle,  He  said  to  them:  "It  is 
enough"  (Mark  xiv.  41).  That  is,  He  had  no  longer 
need  of  their  sympathy. 

Luke  speaks  of  one  prayer  only  (Luke  xxii.  39-46), 
Mark  of  two  (Mark  xiv.  35-42),  and  Matthew  of  three 
(Matt.  xxvi.  39-46);  yet  Mark  implies  2,  third  reiiVQ- 
ment  of  Jesus,  and  so  virtually  a  third  prayer,  and 
there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  questioning  the  histor- 
ical character  of  Matthew's  statement  that  there  were 
three  prayers. 

Mark  and  Matthew  relate  that  as  Jesus  withdrew 
from  the  eight  disciples  with  the  three  chosen  ones, 
He  was  greatly  agitated,  and  that  He  said  He  was  full 
of  sorrow  (Mark  xiv.  33-34;  Matt.  xxvi.  37-38)-  This 
anguish  can  be  explained  only  as  the  prayer  itself  is 
explained.  The  cause  of  one  is  the  cause  of  both. 
The  text  of  Luke  xxii.  43-44»  which  refers  to  the 
strengthening  angel  and  to  the  bloody  sweat,  is  prob- 
ably an  interpolation^  It  is  characteristic  of  Jesus 
that  on  His  first  return  to  His  disciples,  when  He 
found  them  sleeping,  He  turned  from  His  own  suffer- 
ing and  need  of  sympathy  to  speak  a  helpful  word  to 
them.  They  needed  to  watch  and  pray  just  then, 
when  weary  and  tired,  lest  they  should  suddenly  come 

I  Not  found  in  MSS.  AB  Aleph=\  etc.    Rejected  by  Weiss,  Leben 
JesH,  ii.  540,  Note;  Beyschlag,  Leben  Jesu,  ii.  440. 


356  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

into  temptation  (Mark  xiv.  38;  Matt.  xxvi.  41;  Luke 
xxii.  46).  The  wisdom  of  His  words  was  apparent 
a  little  later,  when  one  of  their  number  did  an  act 
of  violence  in  defense  of  Jesus  (Mark  xiv.  47),  and 
when  they  all  left  their  Master  alone  and  fled  (Mark 
xiv.  50). 

Jesus  prayed  that  a  certain  citp  which  was  being 
put  to  His  lips  might  pass  away  (Mark  xiv.  35-36,  39; 
Matt.  xxvi.  39,  42-44;  Luke  xxii.  42).  This  was 
doubtless  a  symbol  of  the  suffering  just  before  Him. 
Not  a  symbol  of  physical  death  merely,  for  His  pure 
heart  and  His  sense  of  God's  presence  and  His  cer- 
tainty of  final  victory  must  have  given  Him  the  sub- 
limest  martyr  courage;  nor  a  symbol  of  the  mental 
sufferings  which  would  be  occasioned  by  seeing  the 
people  whom  He  had  loved  and  served  turn  against 
Him;  but  a  symbol  of  death  as  a  judgment  of  God. 
Man  as  created  was  not  to  die.  Death  was  incurred 
as  a  consequence  of  sin  (Rom.  v.  12).  Jesus  was 
about  to  meet  death  with  a  perfect  sense  of  its  mean- 
ing. It  meant  judgment;  it  meant  a  feeling  of  sepa- 
ration from  God.  It  meant  that  one  who  knew  no  sin 
was  made  sin.  It  meant  bearing  the  chastisement  of 
our  peace.  It  meant  treading  the  wine  press  alone. 
It  meant  to  Jesus,  who  was  sinless  and  who  was  con- 
scious  of  being   the  Messiah  sent  from   God,    some- 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  3  57 

thing  far  deeper  and  more  dreadful  than  we  at  our 
wide  remove  from  Him  are  able  to  conceive. 

(/)  The  Day  of  the  Crucifixion,  (i)  TZ/c  Arrest. 
(la)  T/ic  Arresting  Force.  The  force  sent  to  arrest 
Jesus  was  large.  There  was  not  only  a  company  from 
the  chief  priests,  but  also  a  Roman  cohort,  the  partic- 
ular one  which  was  stationed  in  the  tower  Antonia 
near  the  temple  (Mark  xiv.  43;  Matt.  xxvi.  47;  Luke 
xxii.  47;  John  xviii.  3).  This,  if  full,  numbered  six 
hundred  men.  Yet  the  large  force  was  no  larger  than 
the  circumstances  seemed  to  require.  The  priests  had 
feared  to  make  an  attempt  to  arrest  Jesus  during  the 
feast,  lest  there  should  be  a  tumult  of  the  people 
(Mark  xiv.  2).  There  were  many  among  the  pilgrims 
at  the  feast,  and  some  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem, 
who  had  at  least  a  superficial  enthusiasm  for  Jesus, 
and  if  He  should  put  Himself  at  their  head,  as  their 
Messiah,  their  force  would  be  most  dangerous. 

(ib^  Incidents  of  tJie  Arrest.  The  Synoptists  all 
agree  that  Judas  kissed  Jesus,  and  Mark  says  that  he 
kissed  Him  effusively  (Mark  xiv.  44-45;  Matt.  xxvi.  48- 
50;  Luke  xxii.  47-48).  The  first  two  evangelists  infer 
that  this  kiss  was  a  sign  agreed  upon  between  Judas  and 
the  soldiers,  which  seems  to  be  supposed  by  Luke's  nar- 
rative (Luke  xxii.  48),  for  Jesus  is  there  represented  as 
saying,  ''Betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  man  with  a  kiss.^ " 


35^        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

Judas  may  have  chosen  this  sign  as  the  one  hkely 
to  cause  the  least  disturbance.  It  indicates  that  he 
did  not  expect  any  resistance  either  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  or  of  His  disciples. 

The  incident  related  by  John  (xviii.  4-9)  that  the 
soldiers  fell  to  the  ground  when  Jesus  faced  them,  is 
intrinsically  probable.  All  the  circumstances  con- 
spired to  overawe  superstitious  men.  It  was  in  the 
dead  of  night.  Jesus  was  known  as  possessed  of  won- 
derful power.  He  who  could  raise  the  dead,  as  Jesus 
had  recently  done  near  Jerusalem,  might  He  not  also 
be  able  to  smite  with  death. ^  So  may  the  superstitious 
men  have  reasoned  who  came  to  arrest  Jesus.  Then 
when  Jesus  came  forward  and  asked  whom  they 
sought,  and  said  that  He  was  Jesus,  there  may  well 
have  been  in  His  appearance  a  kingly  boldness  which 
struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  soldiers. 

After  Jesus  had  told  them  a  second  time  that  He 
was  the  one  whom '  they  sought,  and  asked  that  His 
disciples  might  be  allowed  to  go  their  way,  the  sol- 
diers may  have  recovered  themselves,  and  have  seen 
that  Jesus  would  offer  no  resistance  (John  xviii.  8). 

At  this  point,  as  the  servants  of  the  priests  drew  near 
to  Jesus,  Peter  drew  his  sword  and  delivered  a  blow  at 
the  head  of  a  man  by  the  name  of  Malchus,  cutting  off 
his  right  ear  (Mark  xiv.  47;  Matt.  xxvi.  51;  Luke  xxii. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  359 

50;  John  xviii.  10).  Jesus  charged  him  to  put  up  his 
sword,  intimating  that  what  He  was  about  to  suffer 
was  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  His  Father  (John 
xviii.  11).  Otherwise  He  might  summon  to  His  help 
more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  (Matt.  xxvi.  53). 
Only  Luke,  who  was  not  an  eye-witness,  records  the 
healing  of  Malchus  (Luke  xxii.  51).  Weiss  rejects 
this  incident,  Edersheim  accepts  it.  A  certain  motive 
for  the  miracle  may  be  found  in  this  fact,  that  Jesus 
did  not  wish  to  have  men  suffer  through  the  violence 
of  His  disciples. 

Mark  and  Matthew  expressly  say  that  all  the  dis- 
ciples at  last  l^ed  from  Jesus,  and  the  same  is  implied 
in  Luke  and  John  (Mark  xiv.  50;  Matt.  xxvi.  56). 
The  disciples  may  have  been  the  more  ready  to  flee 
because  of  the  word  which  Jesus  had  just  spoken  in 
their  hearing,  "Let  these  go  their  way"  (John  xviii. 
8);  and  also  because  He  had  prohibited  their  doing 
anything  in  His  defense.  It  would  be  very  hard  to 
remain  passive  when  their  Lord  was  in  danger.  Two, 
of  the  disciples  did  not  flee  far,  and  after  a  little 
turned  and  followed  the  band  who  were  leading  Jesus 
away  (John  xviii.  15;  Mark  xiv.  54;  Matt.  xxvi.  58; 
Luke  xxii.  54). 

(2)   Before   Annas.      The   fact  that  Annas  was  an 
ex-highpriest,    of    great     influence    and    wealth,    also 


360        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  together  with  the  probable 
fact  that  the  sanhedrin  could  not  be  at  once  assem- 
bled, even  for  an  unofficial  meeting,  ^  may  explain  why 
Jesus  was  taken  directly  to  his  palace  (John  xviii.   13). 

The  Synoptists  say  nothing  of  this  trial  before 
Annas,  perhaps,  as  Weiss  suggests,  because  it  proved 
of  no  particular  value.  We  must  hold  that  John 
xviii.  19-23  concerns  this  trial,  though  Edersheim^ 
without  good  reason  denies  it. 

Annas  seems  to  have  thought  that  Jesus  was  the 
head  of  a  secret  society  and  had  secret  doctrines 
(John  xviii.  19-21).  Jesus  repudiated  this  idea,  and 
affirmed  that  His  teaching  had  been  from  the  first  and 
wholly  in  public.  Annas  could  find  out  what  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  was  from  any  of  those  who  had 
heard  Him.  This  seemed  disrespectful  to  one  of  the 
officers  standing  by,  and  he  struck  Jesus  in  the  face — 
the  first  of  the  long  line  of  physical  indignities  and 
sufferings  to  which  Jesus  was  subjected  during  His 
trial  (John  xviii.  22-23).  Nothing  seems  to  have 
been  accomplished  by  this  hearing  before  Annas. 

(3)  Peter  s  Denial.  John  places  Peter's  denial  in 
the  palace  of  Annas  (John  xviii.  15-18,  25-27),  while 
the  Synoptists  place  it  "in  the  house  of  Caiaphas.      It 

1  See  Friedlieb,  Archaeologie  der  LeidcnsgcschicJitc^  p.  24. 

2  JJfe  and  Tiynes  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  ii.  548. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  361 

has  often  been  held  that  Annas  and  Caiaphas  occupied 
the  same  palace,  and  hence  that  there  is  no  discrep- 
ancy between  John  and  the  Synoptists  on  this  point. 
This  is  conceivable,  though  the  language  of  John 
xviii.  24,  ' '  Annas,  therefore,  sent  Him  bound  unto 
Caiaphas,"  is  not   favorable  to  the  supposition. 

It  was  natural  that  the  Synoptists  should  put 
the  denial  by  Peter  in  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  since 
they  had  nothing  to  say  about  the  scene  in  the  palace 
of  Annas.  The  historical  character  of  the  denial  itself 
is  in  no  wise  affected   by  this  difference  as  to  place. 

The  four  narratives  of  Peter  s  denial  agree  in  their 
main  statements,  but  differ  in  numerous  details.  Thus 
they  differ  as  to  the  persons  who  occasion  the  differ- 
ent denials,  also  in  regard  to  the  words  they  speak, 
and  in  regard  to  the  replies  of  Peter.  While  there 
are  no  two  reports  which  do  not  present  numerous 
points  of  difference,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
four  accounts  fall  into  two  groups,  Mark  and  Matthew 
forming  one,  and  Luke  and  John  the  other.  The 
groups  differ  from  each  other  more  noticeably  than  do 
the  members  of  either  group.  The  most  important 
difference  is  that  Peter  appears  in  a  more  favorable 
light  in  the  second  group  than  in  the  first.  In  the 
second  it  is  not  said  that  he  swore  or  cursed.  He 
simply  denied   that  he  was  a  disciple,  and  denied  that 


362  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

he  knew  Jesus,  and  denied  that  he  was  in  the  garden. 
But  still  the  four  accounts  agree  in  substance.  They 
agree  that  Peter  was  three  times  charged  with  being  a 
disciple  of  Jesus,  that  he  three  times  denied  the 
charge,  and  that  about  the  time  of  the  third  denial  a 
cock  crew,  reminding  Peter  of  Jesus'  prediction  regard- 
ing him.  Matthew  and  Luke  agree  that  Peter  went 
out  after  the  denial,  and  wept.  These  are  the  essen- 
tial facts  of  the  narrative. 

(4)  Before  Caiaphas.  It  is  remarkable  that  John 
has  no  word  about  the  trial  of  Jesus  by  the  sanhedrin. 
He  simply  says  that  Jesus  was  sent  to  Caiaphas  (John 
xviii.  24),  and  then  passes  on  to  the  trial  before  Pilate 
(John  xviii.  28).  Mark  and  Matthew  contain  the  full- 
est accounts  of  the  scene  before  Caiaphas,  Luke  has 
only  a  brief  notice  (Mark  xiv.  53-65;  Matt.  xxvi.  57- 
6Z\  Luke  xxii.  54-55,  63-71).  The  regular  place  of 
meeting  for  the  sanhedrin  was  on  the  temple  mount, 
but  that  was  probably  not  available  for  the  trial  of 
Jesus,  since  the  gates  of  the  temple  were  closed  at 
night.  ^  According  to  Luke,  the  day  was  beginning  to 
dawn  when  the  trial  before  Caiaphas  was  opened. 
Three  important  points  are  to  be  noticed  in  connec- 
tion with  the  trial  by  the  sanhedrin.  First,  the  failure 
to  make  out  a  case   against   Jesus.      Many  false  wit- 

I   See  Schurer,  Neutestamejitliche  Zeitgeschichle,  ii.  162-164. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  363 

nesses  appeared,  but  their  testimony  was  not  accepted 
even  by  a  jury  who  had  long  purposed  to  kill  the 
prisoner.  One  special  charge  made  was  that  Jesus  had 
spoken  lightly  concerning  the  temple.  This  charge  was 
based  on  the  figurative  utterance  of  Jesus  at  the  time 
of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  two  years  before.  Sec- 
ond, the  challenge  of  Caiaphas.  He  demanded  that 
Jesus  should  tell  under  oath  whether  He  was  the  Mes- 
siah. To  this  question  Jesus  answered  afBrmatively. 
According  to  the  Synoptists,  He  had  not  hitherto 
made  a  verbal  claim  to  Messiahship  in  public.  The 
reason  for  the  solemn  and  explicit  claim  on  the  pres- 
ent occasion  may  have  been  the  desire  that  the  leaders 
should  act  with  the  fullest  possible  knowledge  of  what 
they  were  doing.  Third,  Christ's  declaration  of  His 
paro2isia  in  glory.  In  strongest  contrast  with  His 
present  position  as  a  prisoner,  waiting  the  sentence  of 
the  sanhedrin.  He  places  that  future  scene  where  the 
prisoner  of  the  present  will  be  seated  on  the  clouds 
as  supreme  judge.  This  word  of  Jesus,  an  echo  of 
Dan.  vii.  13,  maybe  regarded  as  a  further  warning 
to  the  sanhedrin  against  the  course  they  were  pur- 
suing, and  as  a  further  affirmation  by  Jesus  of  His 
Messiahship. 

(5)     First  Appearance  Before  Pilate.      According 
to  all  the  evangelists,  Jesus  was  brought  to  Pilate  (the 


364  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

Roman  procurator,  26-36  A.  D.)  early  in  the  morning^ 
(Mark  xv.  i;  Matt,  xxvii.  i;  John  xviii.  28).  The 
council  which  the  high  priests  and  elders  held  early  in 
the  morning  (Mark  xv.  i;  Matt,  xxvii.  i),  may  have 
been  held  for  the  purpose  of  deliberating  how  the 
matter  should  be  brought  before  Pilate,  what  charges 
should  be  preferred,  and  what  the  method  of  the 
prosecution  should  be;  but  it  has  sometimes  been 
thought  that  it  was  held  to  satisfy  a  technical  require- 
ment of  their  own  criminal  law,  viz. ,  that  a  sentence  of 
condemnation  should  not  be  pronounced  until  the  day 
after  the  trial.''  Naturally  the  enemies  would  lose  no 
time  in  bringing  the  trial  to  an  end  and  putting  Jesus 
to  death,  for  they  had  reason  to  fear  lest  His  friends 
should  make  an  attempt  to  release  Him.  Three 
points  may  be  noted  in  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus 
before  Pilate.  First,  the  charges.  In  the  earlier  part 
of  His  trial  by  Pilate  the  charges  against  Jesus  were 
"pnxeXy  political.  There  were  three:  that  He  claimed 
to  be  a  king,  that  He  refused  tribute  to  Caesar,  and 
that  He  perverted  or  stirred  up  the  people,  that  is,  to 
throw  off  the  Roman  yoke  (Luke  xxiii.  2-3;  Mark 
XV.     2;    Matt,    xxvii.     11).       All    these    charges    were 

1  See  G.  A.  Miiller,  Pontius  Pilatus,  1888. 

2  See  Schiirer,  A^cutestamentUclic  Zeitgeschichle,  ii.  165;  Keim, 
Jesus  of  A^azara,  vi.  63;  Friedlieb,  Archaeologie  der  Leidinisge- 
schichtc,  pp.  95-96. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  3^S 

malignantly   false.      Jesus   claimed   to   be  a  king,  but 
absolutely  refused  to  be  the  political   Messiah  which 
the  Jews  desired  Him  to  be.      He  had  not  refused  trib- 
ute to  Caesar,  but  had  recognized  it  as  due.      Second, 
the  bearing  of  Jesus.      In  response  to  the  accusation 
of  the  priests,  Jesus  made  no  reply  whatever,  so  that 
even   Pilate  marvelled.      But  when  Pilate,  in  the  pal- 
ace, asked  Jesus  whether  He  was  a  king,  Jesus  replied 
to  him  (John  xviii.  33-37)-      He  said  that    He  was  a 
king,  but  His  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  and   He 
said  also  that  He  had  come  into  the  world   to  witness 
unto  the  truth.    Third,  the  impression  made  on  Pilate. 
When  Pilate  had   heard    the   charges,    and  had  con- 
versed with  Jesus  within  the  palace,  he  came  out  and 
said  that  he  found  no  fault  or  crime  in  Him  (Luke  xxiii. 
4;  John  xviii.  38).      Jesus  had  admitted  that   He  was 
a  king,  but   Pilate  saw  that  Jesus  had  no  political  end 
in  view.      Therefore  he  was  ready  to  dismiss  the  pris- 
oner.     But   the  chief  priests  reiterated  the  accusation 
that  Jesus  stirred  up  the  people,  and  declared  that  His 
influence  extended  from  Galilee  throughout  all  Judea 

(Luke  xxiii.  5). 

(6)  Before  Herod.  The  way  in  which  Pilate  caught 
the  word  Galilee  in  the  charge  of  the  Jews,  and  hast- 
ened to  send  Jesus  to  Herod,  the  ruler  of  Galilee, 
whose  subject  Jesus  was,  shows  how  desirous  he  was 


366        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

of  getting  rid  of  the  responsibility  of  settling  the  case. 
He  saw  that  he  could  not  release  Jesus  without  incur- 
ring the  deadly  hostility  of  the  rulers,  and  yet  he  saw 
no  ground  of  condemning  Him. 

Only  Luke  speaks  of  Jesus'  being  before  Herod 
(Luke  xxiii.  8-12).  It  seems  that  Herod's  only 
interest  in  Jesus  was  that  he  might  see  Him  per- 
form a  miracle.  He  questioned  Him,  but  we  are  not 
told  what  questions  he  asked.  He  evidently  had  no 
desire  to  accept  the  duty  of  settling  the  case,  which 
Pilate  had  committed  to  him.  Yet  he  had  authority 
to  condemn  and  execute  Jesus,  at  least  by  taking  Him 
to  Galilee  or  across  the  Jordan  into  his  own  jurisdic- 
tion (Mark  vi.  27-28).  For  some  reason  he  shrank 
from  the  exercise  of  this  authority.  Perhaps  the  mem- 
ory of  John  the  Baptist,  whose  innocent  blood  he  had 
shed,  still  troubled  his  conscience,  and  perhaps,  also, 
his  sense  of  justice  made  him  loath  to  accede  to  the 
wishes  of  the  prosecutors.  Yet  he  could  not  refrain 
from  taking  vengeance  upon  Jesus  for  having  refused 
to  work  a  miracle  before  him,  and  for  having  refused 
even  to  answer  a  single  question;  and  so,  through  his 
soldiers,  he  set  Jesus  at  naught,  and  indulged  in  cruel 
mockery  of  Him  (Luke  xxiii.  1 1).  Then  he  sent  Jesus 
back  to  Pilate,  having  first  arrayed  Him  in  a  gaudy 
robe  as  a  would-be  king.      His  return  of  the  prisoner 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  367 

to  Pilate  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  flattering 
recognition  of  the  superior  wisdom  or  authority  of  the 
latter,  and  so  served  to  bring  the  two  rulers  into  a 
friendly  relation  to  each  other. 

(7)  Final  Appeai^ance  Before  Pilate.  When  Pilate 
saw  that  he  had  the  prisoner  again  on  his  hands,  he 
sought  earnestly  to  secure  His  release.  His  desire 
may  naturally  have  been  intensified  by  the  entreaty 
which  at  this  time  came  from  his  wife  (Matt,  xxvii. 
19),  that  he  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  "that 
righteous  man."  Her  solicitude  was  based  upon  a 
dream  which  she  had  had  in  the  past  night.  Knowing 
that  Jesus  was  being  prosecuted  because  of  the  jeal- 
ousy of  the  religious  leaders  (Mark  xv.  lo;  Matt, 
xxvii.  18),  he  asked  the  throng  whom  he  should  release 
to  them,  in  accordance  with  his  practice  to  pardon  one 
prisoner  at  the  Passover.  He  evidently  hoped  that 
the  popular  voice  would  demand  the  release  of  Jesus, 
and  this  might  have  been  the  case  had  not  the  relig- 
ious leaders  used  all  their  influence  with  the  people 
(Mark  xv.  ii;  Matt,  xxvii.  20).  But  they  persuaded 
the  multitude  to  ask  for  Barabbas,  and  thus  Pilate's 
aim  was  thwarted. 

The  procurator's  next  move  was  to  satisfy  the  pop- 
ular cry  for  vengeance  by  having  Jesus  scourged 
(Mark  xv.   15;   Matt,  xxvii.   26;  John  xix.   1-5).      The 


368  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

Synoptists  here  condense  the  story  to  such  an  extent 
that  we  could  not  get  a  clear  view  of  the  course  of  the 
trial  were  it  not  for  John's  fuller  narrative.  From  this 
it  is  plain  that  the  scourging,  for  which  there  was 
of  course  no  legal  ground,  was  a  device  by  which 
Pilate  hoped  to  deliver  Jesus.  In  the  terrible  suffer- 
ing which  it  caused,  the  scourging  was  only  a  step 
removed  from  the  crucifixion  itself.  Pilate  came  forth 
with  Jesus  after  the  scourging  and  again  declared  that 
he  found  no  crime  in  Him  (John  xiv.  4).  But  the 
chief  priests  would  not  stop  half  way.  Their  persist- 
ent cry  was  that  Jesus  should  be  crucified  (John  xix. 
6).  Pilate,  angry  that  he  was  balked  again  in  his 
desire  to  free  Jesus,  told  the  Jews  to  take  Jesus  them- 
selves and  crucify  Him.  He  acquitted  Him.  The  next 
step  was  brought  about  by  the  Jewish  accusation  that 
Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God  (John  xix.  7). 
That  was  the  ground  on  which  the  sanhedrin  had  sen- 
tenced Him  to  death  (Mark  xiv.  64;  Matt.  xxvi.  65-66; 
Luke  xxii.  70-71),  and  now  despairing  of  getting  a 
sentence  on  the  political  charges,  they  ask  for  one  on 
this  religious  charge.  But  the  immediate  effect  of 
their  accusation  was  quite  the  contrary  of  that  which 
they  desired.  It  made  Pilate  the  more  afraid  to  pro- 
ceed against  Jesus  (John  xix.  8V  Pilate's  fear  may 
have  been  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  again  retired 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  369 

with  Jesus  into  the  palace  (John  xix.  9).      The  accus- 
ers who,  in  the  first  part  of  the  trial  before  Pilate,  had 
refused  to  enter  the  heathen  palace  lest  they  should 
be  defiled  (John  xviii.  28),  seem  now  to  have  laid  aside 
their  scruples  in  their  thirst  for  the  death  of  Jesus,  and 
to  have  followed  Pilate  into  the  palace  (John  xix.   12- 
13).     Here  Pilate,  impressed  anew  with  the  innocence 
of  Jesus,  sought  again  to  release  Him  (John  xiv.   12), 
but   was   met   with    a   political  threat,   which   at  last 
turned  the  scale  against  Jesus.      The  prosecutors  de- 
clared  that   he   was  not  Caesar's  friend  if  he  released 
this  pretender  to  kingly  power  (John  xix.   12).      This 
motive    was    strengthened   by    the    fear  of    a  tumult 
Matt,   xxvii.    24),   which  might   easily   create   distrust 
against  him  at  the  seat  of  government.      So  Pilate  at 
last  decided  to  condemn  Jesus  in  order  to  save  his  own 
political  future.     Yet  there  was  still  a  struggle  within 
him.    He  confessed  that  Jesus  was  innocent  in  the  very 
moment  when  he  condemned   Him.      He  washed  his 
hands  and  vainly  tried  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  his 
act  upon  the  Jews  (Matt,  xxvii.  24).    Even  when  on  the 
judgment  seat   and  about  to  pronounce  sentence,  he 
halted  and  asked   the  Jews  if  he   should  crucify  their 
king  (John  xix.  15).      Thus  his  conscience  protested  to 
the  last,  and  he  tried  to  silence  it  with  the  thought  that 
the  Jcc^'s  were  crucifying  Jesus,  and  not  he. 
24 


370  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

(8)  The  End  of  Judas.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke, 
the  only  writers  who  refer  to  the  fate  of  Judas,  agree 
that  there  was  a  lot  in  Jerusalem  which  bore  the 
name  field  of  blood  (Matt,  xxvii.  8;  Acts  i.  19),  and 
that  this  field  was  in  some  way  associated  with  Judas. 
According  to  Matthew  it  was  called  the  field  of  blood 
because  it  was  bought  with  the  blood-money  which 
Judas  received  for  betraying  Jesus  to  death;  while 
according  to  Luke  this  name  was  given  to  it  because 
the  blood  of  Judas  himself  was  shed  there.  But  they 
agree  as  to  the  name  of  the  field,  and  that  it  was 
bought  with  the  money  which  the  chief  priests  gave 
to  Judas.  In  all  other  points  they  differ.  According 
to  Matthew  the  priests  bought  the  lot  as  a  burial 
place  for  strangers;  according  to  Luke,  Judas  himself 
bought  it,  presumably  to  enjoy.  The  first  Gospel 
says  that  Judas  committed  suicide  by  hanging;  accord- 
ing to  Luke,  he  was  killed  by  a  fall.  It  appears  from 
these  statements  that  the  circumstances  of  the  death  of 
Judas  were  not  positively  ascertainable  when  the 
-evangelists  composed  their  Gospels.  It  was  known 
that  he  had  met  a  violent  death,  and  it  may  be  sup- 
posed that  believers  gladly  dropped  the  tragic  details 
from  memory. 

(9)    The    Cj'ucifixion.      (9a)    To   Golgotha.      Jesus 
went   forth  from  the  place  of  judgment  bearing   His 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  37 1 

own  cross  (John  xix.  17),  but  at  some  point  on  the 
way  to  Golgotha,  Simon  of  Cyrene,  father  of  Alexander 
and  Rufus,  who  were,  perhaps,  known  in  the  Roman 
church  when  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  (Mark  xv.  2 1 ; 
Matt,  xxvii.  32;  Luke  xxiii.  26),  was  compelled  to 
bear  the  cross.  The  reason  of  this  is  not  indicated, 
but  it  may  well  be  that  the  strength  of  Jesus  had 
been  so  reduced  by  the  scourging  that  He  was  not 
able  to  carry  the  cross  all  the  way. 

As  the  procession  moved  toward  Golgotha,  certain 
women  followed  Jesus,  beating  their  breasts  and 
weeping  (Luke  xxiii.  27).  Jesus,  in  response  to  this 
sympathy,  said  nothing  of  His  own  sufferings,  but 
pointed  to  those  which  would  come  upon  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Jerusalem.  He  alluded  figuratively  to  His 
own  tate,  but  only  to  heighten  the  doom  of  the  Jews. 
Jesus  did  not  feel  that  He  was  to  be  compassionated. 
He  was  doing  the  will  of  God  as  He  had  always  done. 

The  traditional  site  of  Golgotha  is  about  a  quarter 
of  a  mile  west  from  the  northwest  corner  of  the 
temple,  and  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Recent 
scholars  generally  agree  that  this  place  is  not  the  site 
of  the  crucifixion.  The  narrative  calls  for  a  place 
without  the  city  (John  xix.  20),  but  near  to  it,  and 
near  also  to  a  highway  (Mark  xv.  29).  The  place 
now  quite  commonly  accepted   as  the  site,  lies  on  the 


3/2  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

north  of  the  city,  near  th^  Damascus  gate  (formerly 
St.  Stephen's),  and  hence  near  a  highway.  If  Jesus 
was  tried  in  the  tower  of  Antonia,  or  in  its  immediate 
vicinity,  the  distance  which  He  walked  to  the  place 
of  crucifixion  may  have  been  about  a  third  of  a  mile. 
(9b)  The  Execution.  In  regard  to  the  hour  of  the 
crucifixion,  the  narratives  are  not  at  one.  The  oldest 
Gospel  says  it  was  the  tJiird  hour  (Mark  xv.  25), 
John  says  it  was  about  the  sixtJi  hour  when  Pilate  sat 
on  the  judgment  seat  and  gave  sentence  (John  xix.^ 
14-15).  Accordingly  the  crucifixion  must  have  been 
somewhat  after  the  sixth  hour.  This  estimate  by 
John  better  accords  with  the  probabilities  of  the  case 
than  does  that  by  Mark.  The  sanhedrin  gathered  at 
early  morning  (Luke  xxii.  ^(i),  held  a  formal  trial, 
condemned  Jesus  to  death,  and  then  subjected  Him 
to  various  abuse  and  mockery.  Then  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  consultation  as  to  the  best  method 
of  securing  the  necessary  confirmation  from  Pilate 
(Mark  xv.  i;  Matt,  xxvii.  1-2).  Then  came  the 
first  part  of  the  trial  before  Pilate,  the  trial  and 
mockery  before  Herod,  the  second  part  of  the  trial 
before  Pilate,  with  its  scourging  and  various  con- 
versations with  the  procurator  in  the  palace,  and 
finally  the  sentence  and  the  preparations  for  the 
execution  of  three  persons,    and  the  journey  to  Gol- 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  373 

o-otha.  In  view  of  all  these  proceedings  the  hour 
given  by  John  seems  much  more  likely  than  Mark's. 
The  fact  that  John  was  present  at  the  crucifixion  is 
also  a  reason  why  we  should  accept  his  estimate.  It 
is  not  probable  that  any  one  was  particular  to  observe 
the  exact  time  of  the  execution,  if  indeed  those  inter- 
ested had  any  means  of  accurate  observation;^  but 
John's  estimate  that  it  was  about  noon  must  be 
accepted  as  a  correct  approximation.' 

Jesus  was  crucified  by  four  Roman  soldiers,  and 
two  robbers  were  crucified  with  Him  (John  xix.  i8,  23). 
It  may  have  been  at  the  instigation  of  the  priests  that 
Jesus  was  placed  between  the  robbers.  The  shape  of 
the  cross  used  is  unknown,  but  the  fact  that  the  super- 
cription  was  placed  above  Jesus  favors  the  so-called 
crux  immissch  which  is  the  traditional  form  of  the 
cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  37).  As  an  act  of  mercy  an 
anaesthetic  was  administered  to  criminals  before 
fastening  them  to  the  cross  (Matt,  xxvii.  34)-  This 
was  offered  to  Jesus,  but  was  refused  by  Him  as  He 
wished  to  endure  His  fate  consciously.  John  tells  us 
that  the  garments  of  Jesus  were  divided  into  four  parts, 
one  for  each  of  the  four  soldiers  who  executed  Him, 
and  that  they  cast  lots  for  His  seamless  tunic,   thus  in 

1  SeeW.  M.  Ramsay,  Expositor,  vol.  vii.  1893. 

2  Weiss  and  Beyschlag  both  follow  John. 


374  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

John's  thought  fulfilHng  Psalm  xxii.  i8.  The  hate  of 
the  Jews  was  not  quenched  by  the  blood  that  flowed 
from  the  wounds  of  Jesus.  They  sought  to  heighten 
His  sufferings  by  mockery.  People  passing  by  in  the 
road  mocked  Jesus,  asking  Him  to  come  down  from 
the  cross  if  He  was  the  Son  of  God, — He  who  had 
boasted  that  He  could  destroy  the  temple  and  build  it 
again  in  three  days  (Mark  xv.  29-30;  Matt,  xxvii.  40). 
The  chief  priests  and  scribes  improved  the  oppor- 
tunity of  taking  revenge  on  Jesus  for  His  scathing 
denunciations  of  them  in  the  temple.  They  taunted 
Him  with  claiming  to  be  the  king  of  Israel  and  the 
Son  of  God,  and  said  they  would  believe  His  claim  if 
he  would  come  down  from  the  cross  (Mark  xv.  31-32; 
Matt,  xxvii.  41-43;  Luke  xxiii.  35).  One  at  least  of 
the  robbers  joined  in  the  insults  (Mark  xv.  32;  Luke 
xxiii.  39). 

(9c)  Words  from  the  Cross.  Seven  utterances  of 
Jesus  upon  the  cross  are  given  by  the  evangelists, 
namely,  one  by  Mark  and  one  by  Matthew,  three  by 
Luke  and  three  by  John.  The  probable  order  of  the 
words,  doubtful  in  one  or  two  cases,  is  as  follows: 

(i)  "Father,  forgive  them;  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do."     Luke  xxiii.  34. 

(2)  "Woman,  behold  thy  son.?  Then  saith  He  to 
the  disciple,  Behold,  thy  mother!"'  John  xix.  26-27. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  37  S 

(3)  -This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise." 

Luke  xxiii.  43- 

(4)  -My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken 

me  .?"  Mark  xv.  34;  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 

(5)  "I  thirst."     John  xix.  28. 

(6)  -It  is  finished."     John  xix.  30. 

(7)  -Father,     into    Thy    hands    I   commend    my 

spirit."     Luke  xxiii.  46. 

Weiss  rejects  the  first  of  these  sayings. '  He  thinks 
it  impossible  that  one  of  His  disciples  could  have 
come  near  enough  to  the  cross  to  hear  a  prayer  of 
Jesus,  had  there  been  one  to  hear;  and  also  that  it  was 
not  Christ's  way  to  pray  in  public.  But  it  may  be 
said,  as  against  these  objections,  that  this  first  word 
from  the  cross  breathes  the  very  spirit  of  Jesus;  and 
it  is  perhaps  as  easy  to  believe  that  John  may  have 
been  near  enough  to  hear  the  prayer,  as  to  believe 
that  any  one  invented  it. 

The  thoughtful. and  filial  love  of  Jesus  is  illustrated 
in  His  committal  of  His  mother  to  John;  and  His  Mes- 
sianic consciousness  appears. in  His  promise  to  the 
penitent  robber.  In  the  midst  of  His  agony  He  is 
serenely  conscious  that  He  can  bestow  eternal  life. 
On  the  verge  of  the  grave,  when  the  powers  of  dark- 
ness were  celebrating  their  triumph  over  Him,  He  was 

I  Das  Leben  Jesii,   ii.  579-580. 


37^        THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

as  confident  of  the  future  as  He  had  been  on  the 
brightest  day  of  His  divine  ministry. 

The  fourth  saying  may  mark  the  extremity  of 
physical  and  spiritual  suffering.  It  covers  a  depth 
which  no  one  can  fathom. 

The  Synoptic  narrative  regarding  the  consequence 
of  this  fourth  word  of  Jesus  is  exceedingly  obscure 
(Mark  xv.  35-36;  Matt,  xxvii.  47-49).  Mark  and 
Matthew  represent  the  giving  of  drink  to  Jesus  as 
occasioned  by  His  cry,  ' '  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
Thou  forsaken  me.''"  Some  thought  that  Jesus  was 
summoning  Elias,  because  the  Aramaic  word  which  is 
translated  my  God  resembled  in  sound  the  name  Elias. 
But  from  this  point  Mark  and  Matthew  are  at  vari- 
ance, for  according  to  Mark  the  man  who  gives  drink 
to  Jesus  says  to  the  others,  ' '  Let  us  see  if  Elias  comes 
to  take  Him  down;"  while  according  to  Matthew,  the 
bystanders  say  this  to  the  man  who  gave  Jesus  drink. 
The  words  are  unintelligible  in  Mark  The  Synoptic 
confusion  is  partly  removed  when  we  suppose  that  the 
fifth  word,  the  "/  thirst''  of  John  xix.  28,  was  spoken 
immediately  after  the  ''My  God.''  This  expressed 
wish  of  Jesus  for  something  to  drink  was  what  led  a 
certain  man  to  put  a  sponge  filled  with  sour  wine  to 
His  lips.  This  man,  who  understo'od  Christ's  request 
for  drink,  probably  did  not  misunderstand   His  previ- 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  377 

ous  word;  bat  some  others,  who  had  misunderstood 
it,  called  to  the  man  that  he  should  not  give  drink  to 
Jesus,  but  wait  and  see  whether  Elias  would  come  and 
relieve  Him,  as  Matthew  says. 

The  sixth  word,  "It  is  finished,"  naturally  refers  to 
the  suffering  on  the  cross,  not  to  Christ's  earthly 
work.  His  earthly  work  certainly  included  the  resur- 
rection. This  was  the  culminating  proof  which  He 
gave  of  His  Messiahship,  and  this  w^as  not  yet  fin- 
ished. What  was  finished  was  the  agony  of  death  as 
a  judgment,  in  which  He  felt  Himself  forsaken  by 
God.  This  was  now  forever  past,  and  with  the  loud 
shout  of  a  victor  the  seventh  zvoj'd  \s  uttered,  in  which 
Jesus  commits  His  spirit  into  the  hands  of  the  Father. 
Here  again  is  blessed  and  close  fellowship,  even  that 
fellowship  which  Jesus  had  always  had  with  the 
Father,  excepting  only  that  part  of  the  time  on  the 
cross  when  He  had  made  the  words  of  the  Psalmist 
(xxii.  i)  His  own,  and  cried  in  the  unutterable  agony 
of  His  spirit,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  for- 
saken me.''" 

(lo)  The  Portents.  The  Synoptists  agree  in 
reporting  an  uncommon  darkness  which  was  over  the 
land  during  the  time  while  Jesus  was  on  the  cross, 
that  is,  from  about  noon  till  about  three  o'clock 
(Mark   xv.    33;  Matt,    xxvii.    45;  Luke  xxiii.    44-45)- 


378        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

The  statement  is  that  this  darkness  covered  all  the 
land,  by  which  is  probably  meant  all  the  region  around 
Jerusalem,  far  and  wide.  There  is  no  indication  that 
the  evangelists  regarded  the  darkness  as  a  miraculous 
event.  There  could  not  have  been  an  eclipse  at  that 
time,  for  the  moon  was  full.  Luke's  statement  that 
the  sun's  light  failed  does  not  require  us  to  suppose 
that  he  thought  of  an  eclipse.  We  must  think  of  an 
exceptional  darkness  caused  by  thick  clouds,  provi- 
dential, but  not  miraculous. 

The  Synoptists  also  speak  of  a  rending  of  the  great 
veil  of  the  sanctuary,  which  together  with  a  door  shut 
off  the  Holy  of  Holies;  and  they  associate  this  event 
closely  with  the  death  of  Jesus  (Mark  xv.  38;  Matt, 
xxvii.  51).  Yet  it  is  doubtful  whether  their  language 
can  be  taken  as  strictly  historical.  If  the  veil  was 
rent  in  twain  without  a  rending  of  the  temple  itself,  it 
was  apparently  a  miracle;  but  there  seems  to  be  no 
adequate  ground  for  such  a  miracle.  There  was  then, 
and  was  ever  to  be,  far  better  evidence  for  believers 
that  they  had  access  into  the  very  presence  of  the 
Father,  than  the  fact  of  a  rent  veil  in  the  temple 
would  be.  Moreover  such  a  miracle  could  scarcely 
have  occurred  in  the  very  center  of  the  Jewish  ritual 
without  leaving  traces  on  Jewish  literature.  It  cer- 
tainly is  not  probable  that  the  veil  was  miraculously 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  379 

rent  to  betoken  the  impending  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple, and  so  was  a  sign  for  the  Jews.  The  word  of 
Jesus  announcing  that  destruction,  needed  no  physical 
confirmation;  and  it  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  method 
of  Jesus  to  suppose  that  He  gave  such  a  miraculous 
sign  to  the  unbelieving  Jews.  The  evidence  cited  by 
Edersheim^  to  prove  that  something  remarkable  hap- 
pened in  the  temple  about  this  time  is  very  unsatisfac- 
tory. The  prodigies  of  which  Tacitus  (Hist.  v.  13) 
and  Josephus  (Jewish  War,  vi.  5.3)  speak  are  asso- 
ciated with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  no 
wise  concern  the  death  of  Jesus.  Jerome  thinks  the 
veil  was  rent  by  the  breaking  of  the  lintel  of  the 
temple,  but  his  only  authority  for  the  breaking  of 
the  lintel  is  the  corrupted  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews. 

But  while  it  is  difficult  to  regard  this  statement  as 
strictly  historical,  it  is  also  difficult  to  suppose  that  the 
evangelist  used  this  language  figuratively,  in  keeping 
with  Heb.  x.  19-20;  for  it  is  in  the  midst  of  a  historical 
narrative. 

Another  portent  is  found  in  Matthew  only  (Matt, 
xxvii.  51-53).  He  speaks  of  an  earthquake  in  connec- 
tion with  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  in  consequence  of 
the  earthquake  rocks  were  rent  and  tombs  (which  were 

I  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  ii.  6io. 


380        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

frequently  rock-hewn)  were  opened.  Many  bodies 
of  saints  were  raised,  and  coming  out  of  the  tombs 
after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  they  entered  into  Jeru- 
salem and  appeared  to  many.  It  is  difficult  to  regard 
these  statements  as  historical.  The  idea  that  it  was 
necessary  to  open  the  grave  in  order  that  the  departed 
might  appear  presupposes  a  material  resurrection, 
which  also  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  statement  that 
bodies  of  saints  arose.  But  when  it  is  said  that  these 
appeared  to  many  people  in  Jerusalem,  the  verb 
employed  is  one  that  is  used  only  of  spiritual 
appearing  (John  xiv.  21,  22;  Heb.  ix.  24).  But 
if  it  was  spirits  that  appeared,  then  of  course  it 
was  not  necessary  that  the  tombs  should  be  opened. 
Further,  the  tombs  are  represented  as  being  opened 
on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion,  but  the  bodies  of  the 
saints  did  not  come  forth  until  -after  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus.  This  also  seems  to  be  an  inconsistency  in 
the  narrative.  It  is  possible  that  this  whole  story  is  an 
attempt  to  put  into  historical  and  objective  form  the  true 
thought  that  Christ's  resurrection  stood  in  a  vital  rela- 
tion to  the  resurrection  of  all  the  saints,  and  that,  as 

I  Weiss  (ii.  588)  speaks  of  the  resurrection  of  these  departed  ones 
as  having  taken  place  on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion.  This  is  a  possi- 
ble grammatical  construction  of  Matt,  xxvii.  53,  but  not  a  necessary 
nor  a  probable  one.  If  they  had  risen  that  day,  it  is  not  probable 
that  they  would  have  waited  outside  the  walls  until  the  third  day. 
Why  should  they? 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  38 1 

Paul  says,  Christ  was  the  firstfruits  of  them  that  slept 
(1  Cor.  XV.  20).  One  item  which  singularly  confirms 
this  view  is  that  Matthew  speaks  of  the  resurrection 
of  many  of  the  saints.  Had  the  narrative  been  deal- 
ing with  a  historical  fact,  then  we  should  be  justified 
in  asking  why  all  the  saints  were  not  raised.  If  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  brought  with  it  the  resurrection 
of  the  saints  who  were  buried  about  Jerusalem,  then 
why  not  the  quickening  of  all  the  saints.^ 

(11)  Death  and  Burial  of  Jcsiis.  (na)  Death. 
Jesus  expired  after  He  had  been  on  the  cross  only 
about  three  hours.  It  was  usual  for  the  sufferings  of 
a  crucified  one  to  last  much  longer  than  this.  Pilate 
was  surprised  when  he  heard,  toward  evening,  that 
Jesus  was  already  dead,  and  seemed  scarcely  willing 
to  believe  it  until  he  had  called  the  centurion  and 
inquired  of  him  (Mark  xv.  44).  According  to  John 
xix.  31,  Pilate  gave  permission  during  the  afternoon 
that  the  legs  of  the  crucified  ones  should  be  broken, 
that  death  might  thus  be  hastened\  and  that  the 
bodies  might  be  taken  away  before  the  beginning  of 
the  Sabbath.  We  may  suppose  that  he  gave  this 
permission  shortly  before  Joseph  of  Arimathea  told 
him  that  Jesus  was  dead. 

I  Friedlieb,  Archaeologie,  p.  63-68,  regards  the  breaking  of  the 
legs  as  a  substitutionary  punishment. 


382  THE    student's    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

Weiss^  supposes  that  the  suddenness  of  the  death 
of  Jesus  was  in  answer  to  His  prayer,  which  he  finds 
in  the  cry,  ''My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  for- 
saken me?"  But  apart  from  the  doubtfulness  of  this 
interpretation  of  Christ's  words,  there  is  another  fact 
which  offers  an  explanation  of  His  sudden  death.  All 
the  Synoptists  say  that  Jesus  died  as  a  strong  man,  or 
as  a  victor,  with  a  loud  shout  (Mark  xv.  37;  Matt,  xxvii. 
50;  Luke  xxiii.  46).  This  seems  to  require  us  to  sup- 
pose that  He  laid  down  His  life  by  an  act  of  His  will,  as 
He  had  said  that  He  had  authorit}' to  do  (John  x.  18). 
After  He  had  tasted  all  the  bitterness  of  death  in  the 
sense  of  being  forsaken  of  God,  then  He  said  it  was 
finished,  and  with  a  prayer  and  a  great  shout  He  gave 
up  His  spirit. 

According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  it  was  this  most 
remarkable  death  which  led  the  centurion  to  exclaim, 
"truly  this  man  was  a  son  of  a  god"  (Mark  xv.  39; 
Luke  xxiii.  47),  that  is,  a  superhuman  and  divine 
being. 

John  says  that  a  soldier  pierced  the  side  of  Jesus 
with  a  lance,  when  it  was  seen  that  He  was  dead,  and 
says  that  water  and  blood  came  forth  (John  xix.  34- 
45).  If  John  attached  any  special  significance  to  this 
fact,    as  he   seems  to  have  done   (I  John  v.  6-8),  that 

I  Das  Lchen  Jesu,  ii.  584-586. 


THE    LAST    EIGHT    DAYS.  383 

significance  cannot  now  be  made  out  with  certainty. 
Weiss^  thinks  he  may  have  seen  in  it  a  suggestion  of 
the  fact  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  cleanses,  as  water 
does,  and  Westcott^  regards  the  words  as  suggesting 
that  the  death  of  Jesus  is  the  source  of  atonement 
(blood)  and  sanctification  (water). 

(lib)  The  Burial.  According  to  the  Jewish  law 
(Deut.  xxi.  23),  the  body  of  one  who  had  been  hung  was 
not  to  remain  on  the  tree  over  night,  the  reason  being 
that  such  an  one  was  accursed  of  God,  and  the  expos- 
ure of  the  body  over  night  would  defile  the  land. 
In  the  case  of  the  body  of  Jesus  there  was  special 
urgency  that  it  should  be  taken  down  and  buried 
before  dark,  because  the  next  day  was  Sabbath,  and 
being  in  the  Passover  week  was  a  high  or  doubly 
sacred  Sabbath  (John  xix.  31). 

According  to  John  (xix.  31),  the  religious  leaders 
asked  Pilate  that  the  bodies  might  be  taken  away.  It 
was  common  that  the  bodies  of  criminals  who  had 
been  executed  were  given  to  friends,  with  or  without 
compensation. 

Two  men  were  actively  concerned  in  the  burial  of 
Jesus,  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  a  member  of  the  sanhe- 
drin,  but  secretly  a  disciple  of  Jesus  and  so  one  who 

r  Das  Leben  Jes2i,  ii.   591,   Note. 
2    The  Epistles  of  John,  p.  173. 


384        THE  student's  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

had  not  consented  to  the  counsel  of  the  sanhedrin,  and 
Nicodemus,  who  two  years  before  had  come  to  Jesus 
by  ni^ht,  also  a  member  of  the  sanhedrin  (John  xix. 
38-39;  iii.  i).  Joseph  secured  the  body  of  Jesus  from 
Pilate  (Mark  xv.  43;  Matt,  xxvii.  58;  Luke  xxiii.  52; 
John  xix.  38),  and  furnished  a  tomb,  and  the  linen, 
while  Nicodemus  brought  a  hundred  pounds  of  myrrh 
and  aloes  (John  xix.  39;  Mark  xv.  46).  The  tomb 
of  Joseph  was  in  a  garden  near  Golgotha,  and  was 
new  (John  xix.  41). 

It  is  remarkable  that  no  one  of  the  eleven  disci- 
ples, not  even  John,  had  any  part  in  the  burial  of 
Jesus.  It  may  be  that  John  had  gone  to  take  Mary  to  his 
home,  and  so  was  absent  when  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
buried.  Of  the  other  ten  apostles,  no  one  as  far  as  the 
record  goes  witnessed  the  crucifixion.  Two  women, 
Mary  Magdalene  and  Mary  the  mother  of  Joses, 
beheld  the  tomb  from  a  distance  (Mark  xv.  47;  Matt, 
xxvii.  61),  but  seem  not  to  have  known  that  Joseph 
and  Nicodemus  had  embalmed  the  body  and  fully 
prepared  it  for  burial  (Mark  xvi.  i ;  Luke  xxiii.  56- 
xxiv.   i). 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.' 

{a)  Incidents  of  the  Sabbath.  According  to  Mat- 
thew (xxvii.  62-66)  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  went 
to  Pilate  on  the  Sabbath,  and  asked  that  the  sepul- 
chre be  made  sure  till  the  third  day.  The  ground  of 
this  was  their  fear  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus  would 
steal  the  body  and  so  be  able  to  make  people  believe 
that  the  word  of  Jesus  about  His  rising  on  the  third 
day  was  fulfilled.  x\s  the  result  of  their  request,  the 
sepulchre  was  sealed  and  a  guard  set. 

Weiss'  rejects  this  story.  He  says  that  the  oldest 
tradition  (Mark)  knows  nothing  of  such  a  guard,  and 
indeed  excludes  the  possibility  of  one.  For  it  represents 
the  women  as  coming  to  the  tomb  on  the  morning  of 
the  resurrection,  thinking  only  how  the  stone  should  be 
rolled  away,  but  not  solicitous  about  a  Roman  guard 
(Mark  xvi.  3).  This  objection  however  can  scarcely 
be  regarded  as  valid.  Matthew  represents  the  sealing 
of  the  tomb   as  taking  place  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 

I   Das  Lcbcn  Jcsn,  ii.  594. 

25  .  (385) 


386        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

that  is,  the  day  after  the  crucifixion,  and  it  was  done 
by  the  enemies  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xxvii.  62).  Hence  it 
is  easy  to  suppose  that  the  women  had  learned  noth- 
ing of  it,  since  they  did  not  visit  the  tomb  on  the 
Sabbath.  They  observed  the  tomb  after  the  body  of 
Jesus  had  been  put  into  it  (Mark  xv.  47),  and  the 
next  time  they  saw  it  was  on  the  morning  of  the 
resurrection. 

More  serious  objections  are  raised  by  Beyschlag.^ 
He  says  it  is  incredible  that  the  priests  should  have 
been  so  well  acquainted  with  Christ's  prophecy  con- 
cerning His  resurrection,  which  even  His  disciples  had 
not  understood.  But  there  is  a  difference  between  the 
knowledge  that  Jesus  had  prophesied  His  resurrection, 
and  a  comprehension  of  what  this  word  meant.  It 
certainly  is  not  incredible  that  they  should  have  heard 
of  this  strange  utterance  of  Jesus.  It  would  rather  be 
strange  if  they  had  not  heard  of  it,  and  especially 
since  one  of  the  apostles  of  Jesus  had  turned  traitor, 
and  for  days  had  been  in  close  communication  with 
the  priests.  But  having  heard  of  the  prophecy,  they 
surely  would  not  neglect  any  precaution  which  might 
now  be  suggested  to  guard  against  a  renewal  of  the 
influence  of  their  dead  rival. 

Beyschlag  says  further  that  it  is  incredible  that  the 

I  Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  405. 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST      38/ 

priests  would  at  once  believe  the  report  of  the  soldiers 
who  told  them  of  the  occurrences  at  the  tomb.  It 
would  be  remarkable,  he  continues,  if  they  immedi- 
ately believed  that  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead, 
when  His  own  disciples  refused  to  believe  until  they 
had  seen  the  risen  One,  and  had  had  other  proof  of 
the  reality  of  the  event.  But  in  reply  to  this  objec- 
tion, we  must  notice  that  Matthew  does  not  say,  or 
imply,  that  the  chief  priests  believed  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  on  the  report  of  the  soldiers.  It  is  not 
even  said  that  the  soldiers  reported  that  Jesus  had 
risen.  They  had  been  stricken  with  amazement  by 
some  strange  sight  or  sound,  and  knew  that  the  tomb 
had  been  opened,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  they 
knew  of  Christ's  resurrection.  They  certainly  had  not 
seen  Him  come  forth  from  the  tomb,  and  the  message 
which  came  to  the  Jewish  women  at  the  tomb,  they, 
as  Roman  soldiers,  could  not  understand.  Therefore, 
whatever  they  may  have  reported  to  the  chief  priests, 
they  did  not  report  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  If  they 
reported  that  the  tomb  had  been  suddenly  and  won- 
drously  opened,  and  even  if  they  reported  that  it  was 
empty,  it  is  not  incredible  that  the  priests  believed 
their  report.  If  they  had  been  in  any  doubt,  they 
could  easily  have  satisfied  themselves  that  the  tomb 
was  empty.      Perhaps   they  did  this.      And  then  it  is 


388        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

objected  further  that  Roman  soldiers  would  not  have 
risked  their  lives  by  allov^ing  the  story  to  go  abroad 
that  they  had  slept  at  their  post  (Matt,  xxviii.  13). 
But  it  is  not  so  certain  that  they  did  risk  their  lives. 
They  had  the  sanhedrin  on  their  side,  and  it  had  been 
seen  in  the  last  days  that  the  sanhedrin  was  ablefto 
bend  Pilate  to  its  will.  And  then,  even  if  there  was 
some  risk,  there  was  also  large  money,  and  men  have 
never  been  wanting  who  would  risk  their  lives  for 
money.  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  there  is 
no  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  the  historicity  of  this 
narrative. 

{b)  The  Resurrection.  (i)  The  IVojnen  with  the 
Spiees.  Matthew,  Mark  and  John  agree  that  Mary 
Magdalene  came  early  to  the  tomb  of  Jesus.  John 
mentions  no  one  else.  Matthew  mentions  also  Mary 
the  mother  of  James,  and  Mark  mentions  both  these 
and  Salome  (Mark  xvi.  i;  Matt,  xxviii.  i;  John  xx.  i). 
Luke  mentions  a  certain  Joanna  (Luke  xxiv.   10;. 

As  to  the  time  when  they  bought  the  spices,  Mark 
and  Luke,  who  alone  refer  to  it,  seem  to  differ  (Mark 
xvi.  I ;  Luke  xxiii.  56).  Mark  places  it  after  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath,  and  Luke  puts  it  before  the  Sabbath. 

The  Synoptists  say  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
wrapped  in  a  linen  cloth  and  laid  in  the  tomb.  They 
say  nothing  of  its  being  embalmed.      Luke's  statement 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     389 

(xxiii.  54),  that  as  they  laid  the  body  in  the  tomb,  the 
Sabbath  drew  on,  suggests  that  there  was  not  time  for 
the  embalming.  Accordingly,  the  further  representa- 
tion of  the  Synoptists  that  the  women  prepared 
spices  and  ointments  to  embalm  the  body  of  Jesus, 
is  natural.  But  John  informs  us  that  Joseph  and 
Nicodemus  embalmed  the  body  of  Jesus,  using  about 
a  hundred  pounds  of  myrrh  and  aloes  (John  xix.  39- 
40).  Nothing  was  left  undone.  ■  The  burial  custom 
of  the  Jews  was  wholly  observed. 

Now    since    John    was   present    at   the  crucifixion 
(John   xix.    26-27),    it   is   not  impossible  that  he  also 
saw  the  burial,  though  his  presence  is  not  mentioned. 
There    is    no    indication    that    any    other  one  of  the 
apostles  w^as  present  at  the  crucifixion.      They  fled  at 
the   time   of   the   arrest  of   Jesus  (Mark  xiv.   50),  and 
with  the  exception  of  Peter,  do  not  appear  again  on 
the  scene  till  after    the  resurrection.      Further,    it  is 
intrinsically  probable  that  friends  of  Jesus,  like  Joseph 
and   Nicodemus,  embalmed  the  body  of  their  Master, 
even  if  the  Sabbath  was  just  drawing  on.     They  could 
not  have  entertained  the  thought  of  leaving  the  em- 
balmment two  nights  and  a  day  until  the  Sabbath  should 
be  past.      Therefore  we  must  accept  John's  narrative 
of  the  burial,  and  must  hold  that  the  women  did  not 
know  what  had  been  done  by  Joseph  and  Nicodemus. 


390  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

(2)  Accompaninieiits  of  the  Resurrection.  The 
first  Gospel  records  that  at  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
there  was  an  earthquake,  as  also  at  His  death  (Matt, 
xxviii.  2).  The  stone  was  rolled  back  by  an  an^el, 
and  when  the  women  came  he  was  sitting  upon  it. 
The  Roman  guards  were  prostrate  through  great  fear. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  other  evangelists  say 
nothing  of  these  events.  John  and  Peter,  who  were 
first  at  the  tomb,  after  the  women,  would  have  learned 
these  facts,  we  may  naturally  suppose;  yet  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,  which  rests  on  Peter's  preaching,  and  the 
Gospel  of  John  do  not  refer  to  these  things.  Further, 
it  is  not  manifest  what  the  earthquake  was  for,  since 
an  angel  removed  the  stone. 

It  is  possible  that  Matthew's  description  is  an 
attempt  to  set  forth  concretely  the  majesty  of  the 
great  event;  or  it  is  conceivable  that  this  part  of  the 
account  of  the  resurrection  was  a  story  which  the 
author  found  and  adopted  because  he  thought  it  was  in 
keeping  with  the  majesty  of  the  event. 

But  the  way  in  which  the  stone  was  removed  is, 
after  all,  only  an  unimportant  detail.  All  the  evange- 
lists agree  that  the  women  found  the  tomb  open. 

(3)  The  Resurrection.  It  is  noticeable  that  no 
one  of  the  evangelists  alludes  to  the  act  of  Christ's 
coming  forth  from  the  tomb.      At  what  hour  He  came 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     39I 

forth,  in  what  manner  He  came  forth,  in  what  dress 
— all  this  is  hidden  from  us.  But  if  the  accounts  of 
the  resurrection  were  simply  the  inventions  of  men, 
we  should  look  for  information  on  these  very  points. 
The  Gospel  of  Peter,  which  Harnack^  ascribes  to  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  professes  to  give 
information  in  regard  to  the  very  act  of  resurrection. 
Having  described  how  two  youths  descended  from  the 
opened  heavens  and  entered  the  tomb  in  the  sight  of 
the  soldiers,  it  continues:  "They  see  three  men  come 
forth  from  the  grave,  and  the  two  support  the  One,  and 
a  cross  follows  them;  and  the  heads  of  the  two  reach 
to  the  heaven,  but  the  head  of  the  One  whom  they 
lead  rises  above  the  heaven.  And  they  heard  a  voice 
out  of  heaven,  which  said,  '  Hast  thou  proclaimed  to 
those  who  were  asleep  ^  '  And  there  came  from  the 
cross  as  answer.  Yes.''  How  far  below  the  soberness  ■  IK 
and  propriety  of   the   Gospels  does  such  a  fiction  fall  \   f   y- 

All  the  evangelists  agree  that  the  women  found  the 
tomb    empty;   the  body  of  Jesus  was  gone  (Mark  xvi.    n   fc 
5-6;  Matt,    xxviii.   5-6;  Luke  xxiv.   5-6;  John  xx.   1-2).     ,    \.y 
All    agree    that   the  women   (or    according    to    John, 
woman)    hastened    to    bring    word    to    the  disciples. 
Peter,    John    and   some   others   heard  the   news  first 

I  Briichstuecke  des  Evangeliuyns    iind   der    Apokalyfsc    des 
Pctriis,  1893. 


392  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

(Luke  xxiv.  9-1 1;  Mark  xvi.  8;  Matt,  xxviii.  8;  John 
XX.  2).  It  is  not  probable  that  the  eleven  were  all 
together  at  this  early  hour. 

[c)  Appearances  of  the  Risen  Lord.  From  three  of 
the  evangelists^  and  from  Paul  we  learn  of  the  follow- 
ing appearances  of  the  risen  Lord.  The  order  in 
which  they  are  given  can  not  be  proven  to  be  correct 
in  every  case. 

(i)  As  the  women  fled  from  the  tomb,  Jesus  met 
them  with  a  greeting  (Matt,  xxviii.  8-9).  These 
women  were  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  Salome  and 
Joanna  (Mark  xvi.  i;  Matt,  xxviii.  i;  Luke  xxiv.  10). 
Mary  Magdalene  was  not  with  them.  The  women 
recognized  Jesus,  clasped  His  feet  and  worshipped 
Him  (Matt,  xxviii.  9).  Jesus  quieted  their  fears,  and 
bade  them  tell  His  brethren  to  go  into  Galilee,  where 
they  should  see  Him  (Matt,  xxviii.  10).  This  was  in 
accord  with  the  word  which  He  had  spoken  before  His 
crucifixion  (Mark  xiv.  28;     Matt.  xxvi.  32). 

(2)  Mary  Magdalene  was  not  with  the  other 
women  when  they  met  Jesus,  though  she  also  had  left 
the  tomb  to  bring  word  to  the  disciples  that  the  body 
of  Jesus  was  no  longer  there  (John  xx.  2).  She  seems 
to   have   followed  Peter  and   John  back  to   the   tomb, 

I  The  account  in  Mark  xvi.  9-20  is  not  taken  into  consideration, 
since  it  is  not  regarded  as  authentic.  Moreover,  it  has  no  appear- 
ances which  are  not  found  in  the  other  Gospels. 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     393 

and  there  she  Hngered  after  they  had  returned  (John 
XX.  II).  After  seeing  two  angels  in  the  tomb,  to 
whom  she  told  her  sorrow,  Jesus  appeared  to  her 
(John  XX.  13-14).  She  did  not  recognize  Him  until 
He  spoke  her  name.  Then  with  the  cry  Rabboni.  she 
sought  to  touch  Him,  perhaps  to  assure  herself  of  the 
reality  of  what  she  thought  she  saw;  but  Jesus  re- 
strained her  with  the  mysterious  words,  "Touch  me 
not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  unto  the  Father" 
(John  XX.  17).  He  had  allowed  the  other  women  to 
claSp  His  feet  (Matt,  xxviii.  9),  but  He  does  not  give 
this  privilege  to  Mary  Magdalene.  We  are  probably 
to  find  the  reason  of  this  in  her.  She  may  have 
thought  that  the  old  intercourse  was  to  be  renewed, 
and  her  sorrowful  heart  be  gladdened  by  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  visible  Lord.  Jesus  knew  that  this  was 
not  to  be  the  case,  and  that  what  she  craved  she 
would  not  receive  until  He  had  ascended  to  the 
Father.  Then  He  would  send  to  His  disciples  that 
other  Paraclete  who  would  fulfil  their  joy  (John  xiv.  1 6) . 
(3)  A  third  appearance  on  the  resurrection  day  was 
to  two  disciples,  one  of  whom  was  Cleopas,  as  they 
journeyed  to  Emmaus,  a  village  about  eight  miles 
northwest  from  Jerusalem  (Luke  xxiv.  13-31)-  These 
disciples,  like  Mary  Magdalene,  did  not  at  first  recog- 
nize  Jesus.      He   found,    on   inquiry,   that   they  were 


394  THE    student's    life    of    JESUS. 

talking  of  their  disappointment  because  Jesus  had  not 
proved  to  be  the  redeemer  of  Israel,  and  then  He 
showed  from  the  Scriptures  that  the  Messiah  should 
enter  into  His  glory  through  suffering.  When  the  two 
reached  Emmaus,  they  urged  the  Stranger  to  stop 
with  them.  They  all  went  into  the  house,  sat  down 
to  meat,  and  when  Jesus,  after  giving  thanks,  broke 
the  bread,  they  recognized  Him,  and  immediately  He 
vanished.  Straightway  the  two  went  back  to  Jerusa- 
lem, full  of  joy  at  what  they  had  seen. 

(4)  A  fourth  appearance  on  the  day  of  resurrection 
was  to  Simon  (Luke  xxiv.  34;  I  Cor.  xv.  5).  This 
may  have  preceded  the  third  appearance. 

(5)  The  fifth  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  was 
also  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  According  to 
John  (xx.  19,  24,  26),  this  appearance  seems  to  have 
been  to  ten  of  the  apostles;  according  to  Luke  (xxiv. 
33),  it  was  to  the  eleven  and  those  with  them.  But 
he  may  here  use  the  term  tJic  eleven  somewhat  loosely, 
to  designate  the  apostolic  circle,  so  that  it  does  not 
necessarily  conflict  with  John's  statement.  On  this 
occasion,  Jesus  appeared  while  the  doors  were  closed. 
The  disciples  were  affrighted  at  first,  thinking  that 
they  beheld  a  spirit,  for  what  they  saw  did  not  enter 
the  room  through  the  door.  Jesus  then  proved  that 
it  was  He  by  showing  His  hands  and   His  feet  (Luke 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     395 

xxiv.  39),  or   His  hands  and   His  side  (John  xx.  20J, 
and   by  eating  a  piece  of  broiled  fish  (Luke  xxiv.  42- 
43).    Then  their  fright  was  turned  into  gladness  (John 
XX.  20).      Jesus  told   His  disciples  that  the   Scriptures 
were  fulfilled  in  His  suffering,  death   and   resurrection 
(Luke  xxiv.  46).      He   spoke   peace  to  them,  and  said 
that  He  sent  them  forth  as  the  Father  had  sent   Him. 
They  were  thus  to   be   the   continuators  of  His  work 
(John  XX.  21).    According  to  Luke,  Jesus  told  them  to 
tarry  in   the   city  until   they  should  be  clothed  with 
power   from   on   high   (Luke   xxiv.    49);   according   to 
John,  He  breathed  upon,  them,  and  said,   "  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Spirit"  (John  xx.  22).      We  should  not  how- 
ever hastily  infer  a  conflict  between  these  two  state- 
ments.'    The  act  of  Jesus,  according  to  John,    is  to 
qualify  His  disciples  to  forgive  or  retain  sins.      But  this 
is  something  different  from  the  equipment  with  power  to 
preach  the  Gospel,  which  they  received  at  Pentecost. 
Authority  to  forgive  or  retain  sins  is  authority  to  be  the 
norm  of  truth  in  the  earth,  to  represent  Christ  as  the 
revealer  of  the   Father,  authority  to  be  the  incarnate 
law  regarding  holy  and  unholy.    But  this  is  plainly  dif- 
ferent from  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  as  the  Spirit  of  wisdom 
and  courage  and  force  for  the  conversion  of  men. 

I  Keim,   /esi^s  of  Xazara,  vi.  374,  says  that  John's  narrative 
simply  does  away  with  Pentecost. 


39^        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

(6)  The  sixth  appearance  of  Jesus  was  separated 
from  the  first  five  by  an  interval  of  one  week  (John 
XX.  26).  It  was  in  Jerusalem,  and  apparently  to  the 
eleven  apostles.  Here  again  Jesus  appeared  suddenly 
in  a  room  whose  doors  were  shut.  The  appearance 
was  especially  on  account  of  Thomas,  who  had  not 
been  present  when  Jesus  appeared  to  the  apostles  the 
week  before.  They  had  told  him  of  seeing  the  Lord, 
but  he  declared  that  he  could  not  believe  without  cer- 
tain material  tests.  When  Jesus  appeared,  He  offered 
Thomas  the  very  proofs  which  he  had  said  he  must 
have.  It  is  not  said  that  Thomas  handled  Jesus, 
when  summoned  to  do  so,  but  he  was  convinced  that 
Jesus  stood  before  him. 

(7)  With  the  seventh  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord, 
the  time  of  which  is  not  definitely  fixed,  we  are  taken 
from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee  (John  xxi).  There  were 
seven  disciples  together,  and  the  names  of  five  of  these 
are  given  —  Peter,  Thomas,  Nathanael,  James,  and 
John.  They  had  spent  the  night  fishing,  but  without 
success.  In  the  morning  Jesus  stood  on  the  beach 
and  talked  with  them  from  a  distance.  They  did  not 
recognize  Him,  but  became  convinced  of  His  identity 
by  the  wonderful  draught  of  fish  which  they  took  when 
they  cast  the  net  as  He  directed  (John  xxi.  7).  When 
they  reached  the  shore  they  found  a  fire  on  which  fish 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     397 

were  cooking,  and  there  was  also  bread  near  by.  It 
is  of  course  implied  that  Jesus  had  prepared  these 
things.  But  apparently  the  fish  which  were  being 
cooked  were  not  enough  for  all  the  seven,  and  they  were 
bidden  to  bring  some  of  those  which  they  had  just 
caught.  When  this  was  done,  Jesus  served  the  seven 
men  with  bread  and  fish.  Then  after  the  conversa- 
tion with  Peter,  in  which  Jesus  drew  from  His  apostle 
a  thrice-repeated  confession  of  love  in  allusion  to  the 
three  denials,  and  in  which  also  He  three  times  laid 
upon  His  apostle  the  obligation  to  feed  His  lambs 
and  tend  His  sheep, — after  this,  Jesus  moved  away 
from  the  scene  of  their  breakfast,  asking  Peter  to 
follow.  Peter  saw  that  John  also  was  following,  and 
asked  Jesus  what  should  be  to  him.  The  answer  of 
Jesus,  "  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,"  was  under- 
stood by  some  of  the  disciples  to  mean  that  John 
should  not  die  (John  xxi.  23).  But  when  this  supple- 
mental twenty-first  chapter  was  added  to  the  fourth 
Gospel,  John  seems  to  have  been  dead.  John 
himself  according  to  the  twenty-third  verse  of  this 
chapter,  saw  clearly  that  the  obscure  saying  of  Jesus 
was  not  equivalent  to  a  statement  that  he  should 
not    die. 

Whither  Jesus  went   at  this  time,  when  He  sum- 
moned Peter  to  follow  Him,  what  His  purpose  was. 


39^        THE  student's  life  of  JESUS. 

and  how  He  at  last  departed  from  Peter,  are  questions 
which  must  remain  unanswered. 

8.  The  eighth  appearance  of  Jesus  was  also  in 
Galilee  (Matt,  xxviii.  16-20).  Matthew  teaches  that 
Jesus  had  appointed  a  particular  place,  a  certain  moun- 
tain, where  He  would  meet  His  disciples.  Here  He 
appeared  to  the  eleven  apostles,  and  probably  at  the 
same  time  to  the  large  company  of  more  than  five  hun- 
dred believers,  an  event  reported  only  by  Paul  (I  Cor. 
XV.  6).  This  is  probable,  for,  first,  it  was  only  in 
Galilee  that  so  large  a  number  of  disciples  could  be 
found;  second,  there  are  only  two  appearances  of  Jesus 
in  Galilee,  and  the  scene  on  the  mountain  is  the  only 
one  of  these  with  which  the  five  hundred  disciples 
can  be  associated;  and  third,  even  Matthew's  narrative 
implies  the  presence  of  others  besides  the  eleven 
apostles,  for  he  says  that  some  doubted,  that  is,  doubted 
whether  Jesus  who  had  been  crucified  was  really 
there.  But  it  is  impossible  to  think  that  any  of  the 
eleven  doubted,  for  even  Thomas  had  been  convinced 
that  Jesus  had  risen.  Therefore  we  should  hold  that 
the  eighth  appearance  of  Jesus  was  the  only  appear- 
ance to  a  great  number,  and  was  the  chief  event 
in  the  forty  days  between  the  resurrection  and  the 
ascension.  The  commission  of  Jesus  to  go  and  dis- 
ciple all  nations  (Matt,  xxviii.   19-20)  was  accordingly 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     399 

addressed,  not  to  the  eleven  apostles,  but  to  them  and 
more  than  five  hundred  disciples  in  addition. 

In  the  importance  of  this  eighth  appearance 
of  Jesus  lies  the  explanation  of  that  otherwise  unex- 
plained fact  that,  after  Jesus  had  told  His  disciples 
that  He  would  go  before  them  into  Galilee  and 
that  there  they  should  see  Him  (Mark  xiv.  28;  Matt, 
xxvi.  32),  not  referring  to  appearances  to  them  else- 
where, and  after  the  angel  at  the  tomb  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  resurrection  had  sent  word  to  the  disciples 
that  they  should  see  Jesus  in  Galilee  (Mark  xvi.  7; 
Matt,  xxviii.  7),  He  yet  appeared  at  least  six  times  in 
and  near  Jerusalem  before  He  appeared  in  Galilee  at  all, 
and  then  appeared  there  but  twice.  But  those  appear- 
ances were  to  individuals,  while  that  on  the  Galilean 
mountain  was,  as  it  were,  to  the  entire  Church.  So  the 
word  of  Jesus  and  of  the  angel  is  in  a  measure  justified. 

(9)  The  ninth  and  last  appearance  of  the  risen 
Lord,  exclusive  of  the  later  appearance  to  Paul,  and 
also  of  an  appearance  to  James,  which  Paul  mentions 
(I  Cor.  XV.  7),  but  about  which  we  know  nothing,  was 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  or,  more  exactly,  in  Jerusa- 
lem and  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  (Luke  xxiv.  50-53). 
The  apostles  had  ireturned  to  Jerusalem,  probably  in 
accordance  with  a  request  of  Jesus,  and,  being  gath- 
ered together,  Jesus  met  them  (Acts  i.  4).      He  seems 


400  THE    STUDENTS    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

to  have  been  with  them  at  meat  and  to  have  shared  in 
the  refreshment  which  was  provided  (Acts  i.  4;  x.  41). 
He  told  them  not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem  until  the 
promise  of  the  Spirit  should  have  been  fulfilled  unto 
them.  Then  He  led  them  forth  until  they  were  over 
against  Bethany  (Luke  xxiv.  50),  possibly  that  the 
dear  friends  who  lived  there  might  receive  His  farewell 
blessing.  It  seems  to  have  been  at  this  time  on  Olivet 
that  the  apostles  asked  Jesus  whether  He  would  then 
restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  (Acts  i.  6).  He  had 
spoken  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  immedi- 
ate future,  and  they  desired  to  know  whether  that  would 
bring  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  especially  with  refer- 
ence to  the  redemption  of  Israel.  His  reply  was  that 
only  the  Father  could  answer  the  question  of  time 
(Acts  i.  7;  Mark  xiii.  32),  and  as  for  the  restoration, 
this  was  to  be  through  them  as  His  witnesses,  equipped 
with  the  power  of  the  Spirit. 

{d)  The  Objective  Reality  of  the  Resurrection.  The 
narrative  of  the  evangelists  treats  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  as  a  historical  fact,  demonstrable  to  the  senses. 
The  tomb  was  found  empty,  but  in  an  orderly  condi- 
tion, the  napkin  which  had  been  around  the  head  of 
Jesus  being  folded  and  lying  by  itself  (John  xx.  7-^). 
Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome  clasped  the  feet 
of  the   Lord.      He  proved   His  identity  by  pointing  to 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     4O I 

hands,  feet  and  side,  all  of  which  had  been  pierced. 
He  ate  a  piece  of  broiled  lish.  He  gave  the  seven  dis- 
ciples a  miraculous  draught  of  fish.  He  seems  to  have 
kindled  a  fire  on  the  beach  and  to  have  partially  pre- 
pared a  breakfast  for  His  disciples.  He  was  recognized 
on  one  occasion  by  His  voice,  and  again  by  His  break- 
ing of  bread.  It  is  certain  that  the  evangelists  were 
convinced  that  the  risen  Lord  was  seen  with  eyes  of 
fiesh  and  heard  with  ears  of  flesh. 

The  force  of  these  facts  is  not  destroyed  by  the 
other  class  of  facts  which  indicate  that  the  body  of  the 
risen  Lord  was  no  longer  wholly  subject,  if  subject  at 
all,  to  the  known  laws  of  matter.  To  this  class  be- 
long the  sudden  vanishing  of  Jesus  from  the  house  in 
Emmaus,  where  He  had  broken  bread  for  the  two  dis- 
ciples; His  appearance  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples  on 
two  occasions  when  the  doors  were  locked;  and  His 
separation  from  the  disciples  on  Olivet.  These  facts 
seem  to  prove  that  the  body  of  the  risen  Jesus  was  not 
in  every  respect  the  same  body  which  had  been  laid 
in  the  tomb,  but  they  do  not  argue  against  its  objec- 
tive reality.  It  had  been  sown  a  natural  body;  it 
seems  to  have  been  raised,  in  some  measure  at  least, 
a  spiritual  body  (I  Cor.  xv.  44). 

The  theory  that  the  disciples  had  a  775/c;;/  of  Jesus, 

but    that    He  was  not   objectively  present,  is  irrecon  ■ 
26 


402        THE  STUDENT  S  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

cilable  with  the  narrative'.  This  declares  that  the 
grave  of  Jesus  was  found  empty  on  the  morning  of  the 
third  day.  Therefore,  the  body  must  either  have  risen 
or  have  been  removed  with  intent  to  deceive;  but  this 
latter  alternative  is  impossible.  The  enemies  cannot 
have  taken  the  body  away,  for  in  that  case  they  would 
have  been  able  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the  disciples 
when  they  came  forward,  after  Pentecost,  preaching 
a  risen  Jesus,  and  they  would  certainly  have  done  so. 
Nor  can  the  disciples  have  removed  the  body  of  Jesus; 
for  (i)  Matthew  says  that  the  tomb  was  guarded  (xxvii. 
65-66);  (2)  it  is  incredible  that  the  disciples,  who  did 
not  fully  believe  that  their  Master  would  rise  from  the 
dead,  should  at  once,  while-  smitten  and  despondent, 
have  conceived  the  colossal  fraud  of  stealing  the 
body  and  deceiving  the  world;  and  (3)  the  narrative 
shows  us  the  disciples  changed  from  a  state  of  sorrow 
to  one  of  joy,  from  a  state  of  weakness  to  one  of 
strength,  from  being  scattered  to  being  together 
as  a  world -conquering  power;  and  this  change 
cannot  be  traced  to  a  vision  which  itself  rested  on  a 
lie.  But  if  Jesus  actually  rose  from  the  grave  to  a 
new  and  immortal  life,  it  is  far  easier  to  suppose 
that  He  manifested  Himself  sensibly  to  His  disciples, 
as  He  had  promised  to  do  (Mark  xiv.  28;  Matt.  xxvi. 

I  Comp.  Beyschlag,  Das  Leben  Jesii,  i.  430-435. 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN    CHRIST.     4O3 

32)  and  as  the  evangelists  affirm  that  He  did,  than  to 
suppose  that  He  returned  at  once  to  God,  and  that  a 
miraculous  vision  was  given  to  the  disciples. 

(e)  The  Ascension.  Luke  alone  refers  to  the  ascen- 
sion ,  and  that  not  in  his  Gospel  but  in  the  Acts  (Acts 
i.  9).  The  leading  text-critics  omit  from  Luke  xxiv. 
51  the  words,  "and  was  carried  up  into  heaven." 
According  to  the  passage  in  Acts,  Jesus  was,  appar- 
ently seen,  by  eyes  of  flesh,  ascending  into  the  air, 
and  at  last  was  hidden  by  a  cloud.  In  his  Gospel, 
Luke  simply  says  that  Jesus  was  separated  from  His 
disciples,  but  makes  no  reference  to  His  return  to 
heaven.  This  separation  from  His  disciples  we 
should  understand  as  a  simple  vanishing  from  them 
like  that  of  Luke  xxiv.  31.  Matthew  closes  his 
Gospel  with  the  scene  in  Galilee  where  Jesus  was 
surrounded  by  a  great  number  of  disciples,  and  with 
the  promise  that  He  would  be  with  them  to  the  end 
of  the  age.  How  Mark  concluded  his  Gospel  we 
do  not  know.  The  present  conclusion,  xvi.  9-20,  is 
almost  unanimously  admitted  to  be  an  interpolation. 
We  cannot  say,  therefore,  whether  the  second  evan- 
gelist made  any  allusion  to  the  ascension. 

The  appendix  to  the  Gospel  of  John  (xxi.  1-23) 
gives  us,  as  the  last  glimpse  of  the  risen  Lord,  the 
scene  on  the  lake   shore  where,   after  the   breakfast. 


404  THE    STUDENT  S    LIFE    OF    JESUS. 

Jesus  moved  away  followed  by  Peter  and  John. 
Whither  He  went  we  are  not  told,  or  how  He  was  at 
last  separated  from  the  disciples.  But  while  the 
Gospels  do  not  refer  to  the  ascension  of  Jesus  as  an 
accomplished  fact,  John  represents  Jesus  as  speaking 
of  His  ascension  (John  xx.  17).  It  is  something 
about  to  be  realized.  Thus  we  have  in  unquestion- 
able words  of  Jesus  Him.self  a  distinct  reference  to 
His  ascension  to  the  Father.  This,  therefore,  is  con- 
firmatory of  Luke's  narrative  in  Acts,  though  of 
course  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  fonn  in  which  the 
truth  of  the  ascension  is  there  presented. 

The  ascension  in  Acts  is  not  presented  as  some- 
thing miraculous.  Jesus  now  had  a  body  which  was 
not  conditioned  by  laws  of  matter  as  known  to  us. 
He  could  appear  among  the  disciples  when  the  doors 
were  locked.  He  could  vanish  from  sight  instantly. 
That  such  a  spiritual  body  should  move  heavenward 
at  will  is  as  natural,  as  far  as  we  can  say,  as  that  a 
material  body  should  cling  to  the  earth. 

While,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  very  little  said  in 
the  New  Testament  about  the  ascension,  and  that 
little  not  by  an  eye-witness,  the  belief  that  Jesus 
shortly  after  His  resurrection  returned  to  the  Father 
and  sat  down  at  His  right  hand  in  glory,  is  everywhere 
involved   and   not  infrequently  expressed.     Thus,   for 


THE    RESURRECTION    AND    THE    RISEN  CHRIST.     40  5 

example,  it  is  implied  in  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
Pentecost,  for  Jesus  had  promised  to  send  Him  when 
He  should  return  to  the  Father  (John  xv.  26;  xvi.  7). 
It  is  also  directly  affirmed  many  times  in  the  teaching 
of  the  apostles.      Paul  says  in  Romans  viii.  34: 
"Who  is  he  that  shall  condemn.^ 
Shall  Christ  Jesus  that,  died. 
Yea  rather  that  was  raised  from  the  dead, 
U7io  IS  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
Who  also  maketh  intercession  for  .us.?" 
And    again,     "Seek    the    things  that  are  above, 
where   Christ   is,    seated  on   the  right  hand  of  God^' 
(Col.  iii.   i).      In  the  visions  of  the  Apocalypse,  He  is 
seated  with  the  Father  /;/  His  throne  (Rev.    iii.  21; 

xxii.   i). 

Nothing  was  more  certain  to  the  faith  of  the  apos- 
tolic age  than  that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  seated  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  exalted  far  above  all  rule  and 
authority  and  power  and  dominion,  and  every  name 
that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that 
which  is  to  come. 

Unto  f^im  be  glory  tljrougl]  all  ages. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Abomination  of  desolation ^7 

Annas,  trial  of  Jesus  before.  .  ."" 359-36o 

Anonymous    Gospels ^3 

Anointing  of  Jesus'  feet 239-241 

Anointing  of  Jesus  in  Bethany 312-314 

Announcement  of  death 271-272 

Appearances  of  the  risen  Lord 392-400 

Aramaic  Gospel ^ 

Arrest  of  Jesus 357-359 

Ascension  of  Jesus 403-405 

Authority,  question  of 325-32 

Baptist's  testimony ^3 

Baptist's  death   34 

Baptism  of  Jesus 33-    34.  1 17-125 

Baptism  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus 170-172 

Bethesda  sign 235-239 

Bethsaida  Julias,  crisis  at 244-249 

Birth  of  Jesus 90-  99 

Burial  of  Jesus 383-384 

Caesarea  Philippi 264-278 

Caiaphas,  trial  of  Jesus  before 362-363 

Children  blessed 302-303 

Church  of  Christ 269-270 

Chronological  outline i39-i43 

Circumcision  of  Jesus loo-ioi 

Claims  of  the  Gospel 13-14 

Correspondences  in  Synoptic  Gospels 18-19 

(407) 


408  INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS. 

Contradictions  in  Synoptic  Gospels .  ig-  20 

Conception  of  Jesus yg-  Sg 

Coin  in  fish's  mouth 278-281 

Commandment,  question  of  greatest    328-32g 

Criticism  of  the  sources 13-  16 

Cross,  words  from 374-377 

Crucifixion 372-374 

Dalmanutha 262-263 

Darkness  on  day  of  crucifixion 377-378 

Date  of  the  birth  of  Jesus g3-  gg 

Death  of  Jesus 381-38  ^ 

Decapolis,  ministry  in 258-264 

Demoniac  possession ig2-i9g 

Discourses  in  fourth  Gospel 5g-  6g 

Disagreements  in  Gospels  accounted  for 45-  47 

Divinity  of  Jesus  and  the  Supernatural  Conception 84 

Divorce. 31-32,  301-302 

Dove  and  voice iig-121 

Earthquake  .on  day  of  crucifixion 379-3S1 

Education  of  Jesus   108-1 16 

Elements  in  solution  of  Synoptic  problem  " 20-  51 

Ephraim,  Jesus  in 3o8-3og 

Eschatological  Discourse 329-335 

Fasting  of  Jesus ...  128 

Feeding  five  thousand 244-24g 

Feeding  four  thousand 259-262 

Fig-tree  withered 32,  322-323 

Flight  into  Egypt 106-107 

Form  of  the  temptation 132-134 

Fourth  Gospel's  relation  to  Synoptists 54  ~  57 

Fourth  Gospel  independent 52-54,  57     59 

Fourth  Gospel  trustworthy 51-74 

Galilean  ministry — First  part 180-233 

Galilean  ministry — Second  part 242-283 

General  view  of  first  part 180-181 

General  view  of  second  part 242-243 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS.  409 

Gerasene  Demoniac 25,    34 

Gethsemane 35,  354 

Golgotha,  the  procession  to 370-371 

Golgotha,  site  of 371-372 

God's  vineyard 28-  29 

Gospel  outside  the  Gospels 74-  78 

Grave  of  Jesus 30 

Greatness  in  Christ's  Kingdom 281-282 

Hellenistic  culture  of  the  fourth  evangelist    70-  74 

Herod  baffled 106 

Herod  Antipas'  desire  to  kill  Jesus 304-305 

Herod  Antipas,  trial  of  Jesus  before 365-367 

Historicity  of  Synoptic  Gospels 47-  51 

Home  of  Jesus 108-1 1 1 

Humanity  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel 63-  65 

Independence  of  Synoptic  Gospels 23-  39 

Jacob's  Well 173-179 

Jericho,  blind  man  healed  in 309 

Jerusalem,  last  labors  for 284-297 

Jesus'  personal  appearance 11 5-1 16 

Jesus  at  the  Jordan 144-148 

Judas  with  the  chief  priests 314 

Judas'  departure  from  the  Supper 344-345 

Judas,  end  of 370 

Judean  ministry 158-172 

Kingdom  of  God 188-189 

Last  words  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples 349-354 

Last  preaching  in  the  temple 320-322 

Law  in  the  education  of  Jesus 111-114 

Lazarus  raised 306-308 

Length  of  Christ's  ministry 136-139 

Levi's  call 26 

Literary  problem  in  Synoptists , 16-  20 

Lord's  Supper 29-30,  34 

Lord's  Supper,  institution  of 345-346 

Lord's  Supper,  biographical  value  of 346-349 


410  INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS. 

Magi 103-106 

Man  born  blind 293-295 

Mark's  dependence  on  Peter 40     42 

Mark-hypothesis 21 

Mary  Magdalene  and  the  risen  Lord 393-395 

Matthew-Logia 21 

Matthew  and  the  Logia 42-     43 

Matthew's  independence  of  Mark 30-  39 

Messiahship  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and   Synoptists 66-  68 

Messianic  consciousness 122-125 

Messianic  entry  into  Jerusalem 312.  314-319 

Miracles  of  healing 199-206 

Mission  of  the  twelve 226-2  ^3 

Nature  in  the  education  of  Jesus ....    114-115 

Nazareth,  the  rejection  in 254-255 

Nicodemus  with  Jesus  164-169 

Observance  of  the  Sabbath 224-225 

Olivet,  discourse  on 329-335 

Opposition  in  the  early  Galilean  ministry 222-226 

Opposition  in  the  last  days -325-329 

Order  of  events  in  the  Synoptists 36-  38 

Origin  of  Luke's  Gospel 39-  40 

Paraclete,  see  Spirit 

Parousia  in  Synoptists  and  fourth  Gospel 68-69 

Parousia,  nearness  of 330-335 

Passover,  time  of  the  last 335-339 

Passover,  preparation  for 339-341 

Perean  ministry 298-305 

Peter's  confession 264-269 

Peter's  denial 35-36,  360-362 

Pilate,  trial  of  Jesus  before 363-365,  367-369 

Prayer,  the  high-priestly 349-351 

Prayer  in  Gethsemane 355-357 

Pre-existence  of  Christ .  290-292 

Presentation  of  Jesus loi 

P^^'i"^ 137-139.  142.  234-235 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS.  411 


Quirinius'  enrolment gj 


92 


Raising  the  dead 218-222 

Resurrection  and  parousia 272-274 

Resurrection,  question  of 327 

Resurrection  of  saints  at  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 379-381,  390 

Resurrection,  accompaniments  of 390-392 

Resurrection,  objective  reality  of 400-403 

Risen  Lord,  appearances  of 392-400 

Ruler,  the  young 303-304 

Sealing  the  sepulchre 385-388 

Seventy  disciples 226-230,  299-301 

Shepherds'  vision 99-100 

Sidon,  visit  in 255-257 

Simeon  and  Jesus.  . .    102-103 

Son  of  man,  Son  of  God 166-168 

Sources  written. 3g-  45 

Spirit,  the 352-354 

Spirit-baptism  of  Jesus 121-122 

Storm  on  the  lake 28,  211-213 

Supernatural  conception 79-  89 

Sychar lyg 

Synagogue — address  in  Capernaum 249-251 

Synoptic  Gospels  and  John 15 

Synoptic  problem 20-  23 

Synoptic  Gospels  independent 23-  39 

Synoptic  Gospels  historical 47-  5 1 

Teaching  of  Jesus 181-192 

Temple  cleansed 159-163 

Temptation  of  Jesus 126-135 

Topographical  Outline 143 

Transfiguration 274-278 

Tribute,  question  of 326 

Twelve  disciples 207-21 1 

Tyre,  visit  in 255-257 

Union  with  the  Father 289-290 

Veil  of  the  temple  rent 378-379 


412  INDEX   OF    SUBJECTS. 

Walking  on  the  Lake 213-218 

Warnings ^ .  322-325 

Washing  the  hands 251-253 

Washing  the  disciples'  feet 341-344 

Water-baptism  of  Jesus 1 18-1 19 

Wedding  in  Cana 148-155 

Women  with  spices ? 388-389 

Zacchaeus 309-3 10 


Date  Due 

Wlys   ^ 

k. 

1 

' 

f 

